
Qass_--£ - & C 3 

RnnI, , V?U47 



1 



\ 



I 



I 

26th Congress, Rep. No. 436. Ho. of Reps. 

1^^^ Session. ~ 



VIRGIlNIA REvOlXTIONARY CLAIMS— BOUNTY LAND AND 
COMMUTATION PAY. 

J^J^ 

April 24, 1840. '~pT~T^ 

Ordered to be laid on the table, and that -2,000 extra copies be printed. 



Mr. Hall, from tlie Committee on RevoIiUioi]ar7 Chiims, to which the sub- 
ject had been referred, submitted the followins^ 

REPORT : 

To which is added, " Vieivs of the minor ily of said commiiiee." 



CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES. 

In the House of Representatives, 

March 5, 1840. 
On motion of Mr. Hall, from the Committee on Revohuionary Claims, 
Resolved, That the Committee on Kevoiutionary Claims be instructed to 
inquire into the character and amount of proof which is required by exist- 
ing- laws and regulaiions to establish claims on the United States for revo- 
lutionary services in the Virginia continental line and navy ; and whether 
any and what further legislative provisions be necessary in regard to the 
mode of adjusting and allowing claims for such services; and that the report 
of a select committee on the same subject, made at the last session, with the 
papers accompanying said report, be referred to the said Committee on Re- 
Tolulionary Claims. 
Attest : H. A. GARLAND, Clerk. 

■PAiur & Rives, printers. 



Rep. No. 436. 






TABLE OF CONTENTS. 



Subjects of inquiry - - ' - 

Virginia bounty land claims, their origin and history 

Reports of coininittee of the Virginia House of Delegates, on Gov- 
ernor Tazewell's message of December, 1834, considered and contro- 
verted .----. 

Officers' claims, which have been allowed, more numerous than ever 
could have existed . - - . . 

Officers' allowances for over six years' service - - . 

Excessive number of allowances to navy officers 

Commutation pay, nature and history of - - - 

Mr. Marshall's bill and report of 1S34, considered 

Ancient list of officers entitled to commutation - - . 

Arrangements of Virginia line, September 1778, March 1779, and 
September 1779, noticed - - - - - 

Chesterfield arrangement, February 1781, described 

Cumberland arrangement, May 1782 - . . 

Winchester arrangement, January 1 , 1783 . . . 

Ancient list of depreciation payments by Virginia 

Ancient list of final-settlement certificates by the United States 

Ancient list of Virginia officers entitled to three and four months" pay, 
in 1782 and 1783 . . . . . 

Names of all the Virginia officers who have been allowed commutation 
by modern acts of Congress - . . . 

Validity of their claims considered, viz : 

The claim of Philip Slaughter . . . . 

James Burnett - - . - 

Robert H. Harrison, a staff officer 
William Price . . - . 

Thomas Blackwell - . . . 

William Vawters, of Colonel George Gibson's Stale regi- 
ment . . - . . 
John Roberts, of convention guards 
George Baylor . . . . 

J „ William Carter . . _ - 

Edmund Brooke, Harrison's artillery 
John Thornion . . . - 

Tliomas Triplett . - . - 

John Thomas . . - . 

Peter Foster - - - - - 

, Thomas Minor . . - - 

James Craine . - . - 

John Taylor- . . - - 

Everard Meade . . . - 

William Teas . _ - - 

Buller Claiborne - - - . 



Page. 
4 
4 



10 

12' 
16 
17 
19 
21 
26 

27 
28 
31 
32 
33 
33 

34 

34 

35 
36 
37 
39 
41 

41 
43 
4& 
50 
51 
53 
54 
55 
55 
56 
56 
57 
57 
58 
58 



Rep. No. 436. 3 

Page. 

The claim of John Emerson - - - - 59 

Thomas Wallace - - - - 59 

William Royall - - - - 60 

Robert Jone'tt - - - - 61 

Thornton Taylor - - - - 61 

John Spitfathom - - - - 62 

Daniel Duval - - - - 63 

Charles Snead, (superseded) - - - 64 

Timothy Feely ' - - - - 66 

Simdry ot?ier cases favorably reported at former sessions, claims un- 
founded - - - - - - 66 

Surgeons' mates, and conclusion of commutation cases - - 69 
What hirther legislation may be required in regard to Virginia land 

warrants - - - - - - 70 

Ohio reservation, to be abandoned to claimants - - - 70 

Mistake in the deed of cession, controverted - - - 71 
Interference of United States to prevent locations in Kentucky, as stated 

in the Virginia report of December, 1834, denied - - 77 

Concluding resolutions - - - - - 81 

APPENDIX. 

Form of bounty-land warrant. 
2. (Quantity of Virginia land warrants satisfied by the United States, 
being a report from the Commissioner of the General Land 
Office. 
(Quantity of unsatisfied warrants now outstanding, from the Com- 
missioner of the General Land Office. 
Quantity and number of land daims allowed by Virginia, being 

the reports of the register of the Virginia land office. 
Bounty Land Office of the United States — report from, in reference 

to the officer's book, and other revolutionary records. 
Estimate of the number of regiments which Virginia land warrants 

that have been granted would satisfy. 
Depreciation payments by Virginia — letters from Auditor Heath, of 

Virginia, in reference to. 
Lists of special acts of commutation passed by Congress, and amount 

of payments under each. 
Proceedings of supernumerary and deranged officers of the Vir- 
ginia line, accepting commutation pay. 
Reports of the Secretary of War, Third Auditor, and Commissioner 
of Pensions, in reference to " officer's book/' and other revolu- 
tionary records. 
No. 11. Cumberland list of resignations, &c., of September 2, 1782. 
No. 12, Copy of Virginia deed of cession. 
No. 13. Correspondence with David H. Burr, showing the quantity of land 

in the military bounty-land district in Kentucky, 
No. 14. Copy of Colonel Francis Taylor's commission in the convention 

guards. 
No. 15. Modern United States bounty-land allowances, compared with Vir- 
ginia allowances, showing the excess of the latter allojvances. 



No. 
No. 


1 

2 


No. 


3 


No. 


4 


No. 


5 


No. 


6 


No. 


7 


No. 


8 


No. 


9 


No. 


10 



4 Rep. No. 436. 

REPORT OF THE MAJORITY. 

,• The Committee on Revolutionary Claims, consisting of Mr. Craig of Va., 
Mr. Randolph of N. J., Mr. Hall of Vt., Mr. TaUaferro of Va., Mr. Parmenter 
of Mass., Mr. Montgomery of N. C, Mr. Rogers of S. C, Mr. Ely of N. Y., 
and Mr. Swearingen of Ohio, who were instructed •' to inquire into the char- 
acter and amount of proof which is required by existing laws and regula- 
tions 10 establish claims on the United States for revolutionary services in 
the Virsinia continental and State lines and navy; and whether any and 
what further legislative provisions may be necessary in regard to the mode 
of adjusting and allowing claims for such services," and to whom the report 
of a select committee on the same subject, made at the last session, with the 
papers accompanying it, were also referred, make report on the subject, in 
part, as follows, viz : 

The committee have considered the three following classes of cases as 
embraced within the scope of their inquiries : 

1. Claims against tlie United States, for the satisfaction, either by land or 
scrip, of military bounty-land warrants issued under the authority of the 
State of Virginia. 

2. Claims for five years' full pay. ns the commutation of half pay for life, 
made to Congress for services alleged to have been performed by officers in 
the Virginia hue of the continental army. 

3. Claims of half pay for life for services of officers in the Virginia State 
line and navy, under the provisions of the act of Congress of July 5, 1832, 
entitled "An act for liquidating and paying certain claims of the State of 
Virginia." 

The amount paid from the Treasury during the last ten years, in satis- 
faction of these classes of claims, exceeds the sum of three millions of dol« 
lars ; and claims to the amount of nearly a million of dollars more are now 
pending before Congress. Hence the importance of a careful and thorough 
examination of theevidence on which their validity has been supposed to 
rest. 

The committee, reserviiig the consideration of the half-pay claims under 
the act of July 5, 1832, for a future report, will now proceed to examine the 
other two classes, in the order in which they have been mentioned ; and, 
first, 

Virgbiia houniy-land warrants. 

By acts of the General Assembly of Virginia passed in October, 1779, 
lind October, 1780, (see 10 Henning's Statutes, 160 and 375,) officers of the 
Virginia continental and State lines, who should serve to the end of the 
war, were to be entitled to bounty lands from the State, as follows, viz : 
A major general - - 15,000 acres. 

A brigadier general - - 10,000 " 

A colonel - - - 6,666 1. " 

A major , . - 5,333^- " 

A captain - - - 4,000 " 

A subaltern - - - 2,666| " 

By the same acts the same quantity of land was to be allowed to officers 
of the State navy as to officers of the army of equal rank. 

These nets of Assembly also promised land to non-commissioned officers, 
soldiers, and sailors, as follows : 



Rep. No. 436. 5 

To every non commissioned officer, who, enlisting for the war, should 
serve to the end of it, 400 acres ; to every soldier and sailor, for like service 
under the same enlistment, 200 acres ; to every non-commissioned officer 
enlisting for three years, and serving ont the same, or to the end of the war' 
200 acres ; and to every soldier and sailor, under like circumstances, 100 
acres. 

Before the passage of these acts, others had been in force, promising to 
officers and soldiers a less quantity of land ; and a large tract of country 
in Kentucky had been reserved for the satisfaclion of their claims. By a 
law of May, 1782, provision was made for issuing warrants on the claims 
of officers and soldiers to the lands appropriated, for the satisfliction of their 
military bounties ; and it was further enacted, as follows : « That any officer 
or soldier, who hath not been cashiered or superseded, and who hatli served 
the term of three years successively, shall have an absolute and uncondition- 
al title to his respective apportionment of the land appropriated as aforesaid : 
and tor every year which every officer or soldier may have continued, or shall 
hereafter continue, in service, beyond the term of six years, to be computed 
from the time he last went into service, he shall be entitled to one-sixth 
part in addition to tJie quantity of the land apportioned to his rank respec- 
tively." By the provisions of this act, warrants were to be issued on the 
certificate of the Commissioner of War : but in October of the same year, 
the office of Commissioner of War was abolished, and the duties trans- 
ferred to the Executive. The Executive has ever since exercised the 
power of deciding upon these claims to bounty lands. If the claim is ad- 
mitted, the Executive giv^s a certificate to the claimant to that effect, who 
carries it to the land office of that Slate, and the register issues to him a 
warrant, directed ■< to the principal surveyor of the land set apart for the 
officers and soldiers of the Commonwealth of Virginia," cmpowerino- him 
to lay off and survey to the person in whose favor the warrant is drawn, 
the quantity of land therein specified. (See form of warrant, appendix 
No. 1.) ^^ 

As a security against the allowance of unfounded claims, it had been 
provided by act of May, 1779, that the evidence on which warrants should 
be granted should, in the case of an officer, be the certificate of a general 
officer, or commanding officer of the troops on the Virginia establishment ; 
and 111 the case of a non-commissioned officer or soldier, that it should be 
the certificate of the commanding officer of the regiment or corps to which 
he belonged; such certificates '"distinguishing particularly the line in 
which such officer or soldier had served?' The certificates were to be au- 
thenticated by proof before a court of record, and the several courts were 
to return annually, in the month of October, to the register's office, a list 
of all certificates by them examined and authenticated. The act continued 
in lorce until 1S1.5, when the Executive was authorized to allow claims for 
land bounty, '•' when satisfactory evidence is adduced that the party is en- 
titled." This is said by Henning (Stat. 1 i, 562, note) to have been the wac- 
lice long before. 

At the time of the cession by Virginia of the northwestern territory to the 
United States, it seems to have been supposed that there might not have 
been a sufficient quantity of good land set apart by Virginia in Kentucky 
to saUsfy the bounties promis'ed to her troops ; and to provide against such 
deficiency, the following clause was inserted in the deed of cession : "That 
m case the quantity of good land on the southeast side of the Ohio, upon 



g Bep. No. 436. 

the waters of Cumberland river, and between the Green river and Ten- 
nessee river, which have been reserved by law for the Virginia troops on 
continental estabUshment, should, from the North Carolina hne bearmg in 
further upon the Cumberland lands than was expected, prove insufficient 
for their leo;al bounties, the deficiency should be made up to the said troops 
in good laiKls to be laid off between the rivers Scioto and Little Miami, on 
the'northwest side of the river Ohio, iu such proportions as have been en- 
gao-ed to them by the laws of Virginia." This deed, in pursuance of an 
acfof the Virginia Assembly, passed at the October session 1783, was ex- 
ecuted by her delegates in Congress on the 1st of iVlarch, 1784. At the 
same session of her^General Assembly, at which such assent to tlie cession 
had been given, an act had been passed, by which certain officers of the 
continentafline, and certain officers of the State line, were authorized to 
appoint superintendents on behalf of the respective lines, for the purpose of 
rec^ulating the locations and surveys, and of performing any act which might 
be'^necessary to enable the holders of warrants to take possession of their 
lands and perfect their titles. (II Hen. 309.) 

The superintendents immediately entered upon the performance ot then- 
duties, dividing the territory which had been set apart in Kentucky for the 
satisfaction of'^military warrants between the respective lines of the army, 
assio-nino- a portion of the territory, by distinct bounds, to the troops of the 
contlnenUil line, and the residue to those of the State hne and navy. Loca- 
tions and surveys continued to be made in Kentucky, under warrants for 
services in both lines ot the army and in the navy, until the 1st of May, 
1792, when, by the terms of the compact under which Kentucky became ati 
independent State, (which terms had been proposed by act of Virginia of the 
18th December, 1789,) all the lands then remaining unlocated became sub- 
ject to the exclusive disposition of Kentucky. 

But, before the time for locating warrants in Kentucky had expired, and 
as early, it is believed, as 1787, such of the holders oi continevlal warrants 
as chose to do so began to locate them on the reservation between the 
Scioto and Little Miami, iu Ohio. "J^his was done with the sanction of the 
superintendents of surveys, and before Congress had been certified of there 
beino- any deficiency of good lands on the southeast side of the Ohio to 
satisfy such warrants. This conduct of the superintendents, connected 
with a belief that the checks which had been imposed by Virginia oii the 
granting of warrants were too slight to prevent their being improvidently 
issued, ^produced a controversy between Congress and the authorities of 
that State, the history of which it is unnecessary to detail. (See resolu- 
tions of Congress, July 17th and September 1st, 1788, and reports to the 
Houseof Representatives, July 31, 1789— State Papers, I Public Lands, No. 
1.) But the superintendents of surveys having reported to the Executive 
of Viririnia that the deficiency of good lands on the southeast side of the 
Ohio, contemplated by the deed of cession, had been ascertained, and the 
same having been communicated to Congress, an act was passed on the 
10th day of August, 1790, sanctioning the locations and surveys on the 
reservation in Ohio, and prescribing regulations by which the holders of 
warrants might obtain titles to their lands. 

This act sought to limit the number of warrants to be issued by the au- 
thorities of Virginia, and the quantity of land to be covered by them, to a 
list and estimate to be furnished the Executive of that State by the Secretary 
Of War. The act also provided that, before the seal of the United States 



Rep. No. 436. T 

should be affixed to the patent which was to issue for the land, the Secre- 
tary of War should endorse thereon that " the grantee therein named was 
originally entitled to such bounty lundsJ' But' this attempt to restrain the 
free issue of Virginia warrants, and to provide for the re examination of the 
evidence on which they were granted, as have others of a like character of 
a subsequent date, proved ineffectual ; and warrants have continued to be 
issued, without limitation, or any practical supervision by the authorities of 
this Government, from that time to the present. There have, indeed, been 
numerous attempts by Congress to put an end to these bounty-land claims, 
and to take possession, for the United States, of the remnant of the reserva- 
tion unlocated, by prescribing the time within which locations should be 
completed. The first act of this description, which passed March 23, 1804, 
provided that all locations should be completed withm three years from the 
passage of the act ; and that all the lands in the reservation not then loca- 
ted should be thenceforth released from any claim for bounty lands, and be 
disposed of m the same manner as other public lands. Since that time no 
less than nine different acts have been passed, extending the time for loca- 
ting these warrants, from two to five years each time ; the last of which 
pas'sed in July, 1S3S, by which tlie time was extended to the 10th of August, 
1840. 

It appears from a statement furnished by the Commissioner of the Gen- 
eral Land Office, under date of Februarys, 1839, tliat the quantity then 
taken up by these warrants in Ohio was 3,495,747 acres ; and he esti- 
mated the quantity of land then remaining to be about 200,000 acres. (See 
appendix, No. 2.) 

It will be noticed that the right to locate warrants on the reservation in 
Ohio had been confined exclusively to the Virginia troops of the continental 
line. But on the 30th of May, 1S30, an act was passed making the United 
States responsible to the amount of 260,000 acres of land lor the bounties 
which had been promised by Virginia to the officers, soldiers, sailors, and 
marines, who liad been in service during the Revolution in her iState line 
and navy. This act provided for the issuing of scrij) by the Commissioner 
of the General Land Office, in satisfaction of Virginia warrants for State 
service ; which scrip was transferable by assignment, and receivable in 
payment for the quantity of land expressed upon its face, at any of the land 
offices of the United States in Ohio, Indiana, or Illinois. The act also made 
an appropriation of 50,000 acres of land, for which scrip was authorized to 
issue for Virgmia warrants, for services in the continental line ; being 
310,000 acresof scrip in the whole. 

This act was passed without being founded on any written report by a 
committee of either House, and, so far as can now be ascertained, without 
much discussion in either branch of the Ijegislatnre. The appropriation 
of land appears to have been intended to /ake up the warrants then out- 
standintj and unsatisfied, without any expectation of thereby making the 
Government liable to satisfy warrants that might thereafter be issued. But 
the acts of 1830 operating as a powerful stimiilus to the allowance of new 
claims, a farther appropriation of 300,000 acres was demanded and made 
on the iSth of July, 1832 ; and another of 200,000 acres on the 2d of March, 
1833 : and yet another of 050,000 acres on the 3d of March, 1835 : ^naking, 
in all,' 1,460,000 acres, equivalent to $1,825,000 in money, for which scrip 
has issued. And the ccmimitlee find that the General Assembly of Virginia, 
on the 10th of February, 183S, aiid also on the 7th of December, 1839, 



S Rep. No. 436. 

passed resolutions inslrncting their Senators, and requesting their Repre- 
sentatives, " to use their best exertions to procure from Congress an ad- 
ditional appropriation of land to satisfy the outstanding miUtary bounty- 
land warrants, issued under the authority of this Commonwealth, to the 
officers and soldiers of the Revolution, or their legal representatives," 
These resolutions have both been presented to the Senate of the United 
States, and may be found among tlie published documents of that body. 
(See Senate Document No. 223 of the 2d session, 25th Congress ; and 
Document No. 30 of the present Congress.) These resolutions do not 
specify the quantity of warrants for which satisfaction is asked, nor are they 
accompanied by a statement of the quantity remaining outstanding. But, 
by a letter from the Commissioner of the General Land Office, of ihe 30th 
of January, 1840, it appears that the quantity of unsatisfied claims which 
had been allowed by Virginia amounted, at that time, to 629,104 acres. (See 
appendix No. 3.) 

It is not the inlention of the committee, in this place, to call in question 
the justness of the principles on which the act of May, 1830, and the sub- 
sequent acts appropriating land scrip, were founded ; though, in another 
part of this report, they may institute an examination of those principles. 
For the present, taking it for granted that the United States were under 
obligation to fulfil the promises of Virginia to her ^tate troops, and to make 
good to Virginia any deficiency in the Ohio reservation to satisfy those of 
the continental line, the committee will proceed to inquire whether this 
Government has provided sufficient guards to secure itself against the 
payment of unfounded claims ; or, in other words, whether, from the man- 
ner in which claims for land warrants have been adjudicated by the au- 
thorities of Virginia, this Government has sufficient assurance that the 
fourteen hundred and sixty thousand acres of scrip which have been issued 
during the last ten years were issued for services really performed, in con- 
lormiiy with the laws of Virginia ; and whether there is reasonable proba- 
bility that tlie six hundred thousand acres more, which are now asked for, 
would, if granted, be issued for such services? 

These claims to bounty land being founded on services alleged to have 
been performed more than half a century ago, and there having been no 
impediment to the allowance and satisfaction of them for a period of eight 
years immediately after they accrued, it would seem probable that the great 
mass of the just claims liad been allowed and satisfied durisig that period, 
'i'his presumption receives additional strength from the important fact, that 
the I^egislature of Virginia, which must have been familiar with the char- 
acter and extent of the claims, and interested to have them satisfied, volun- 
tarily abandoned further right to locate the warrants of her State line and 
navy after the first of May,^1792, by surrendering the territory set apart 
for that purpose to the State of Tt^ntucky. 

A tabular statement of the quantity, in acres, of land warrants which have 
been granted by Virginia during each year, from 1782 to the present pe- 
riod, is appended to this report, (appendix No. 4, A, B, C,) together with 
a statement of the quantity of claims allowed, for which^ warrants remain 
to be issued ; from which it appears that the whole'quantity of allowances 
to the State line has been 1,160,458 acres ; to the State navy, 977,782 acres ; 
to the C'-^i^inental line, 4,796,207 acres; and for services in which the line 
is uncertain, 168,519 acres : making the total of all allowances to have been 
7jl20j966 acres. This number of acres is equivalent to 11,126 square 



Rep. No. 436. 9 

miles, covering a territory greater in extent, by about one quarter, than the 
Jargest of either of the following eight States of this Union, to wit : New 
Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jer- 
sey, Delaware, and Maryland. 

It will also be seen, by the details of snch tabular statement, that the early 
allowances were principally made within lour or five years after the close 
of the war ; and that the allowances for the four years next previous to the 
1st of May, 1792, were comparatively of tritlmg amount ; indicating, as the 
committee conceive, that all, or nearly all, the claims which, by the princi- 
ples and rules of evidence then adopted could be allowed, had been pre- 
sented and adjusted. This indicatiou is particularly strons: in regard to 
llie allowances to the State line and navy, from the fact, that notice of the 
expiration, on the 1st of May, 1792, of the time for obtaining satisfaction 
of their warrants had been given in December, 1789, by the passage of the 
act by which the whole of the military laud district in Kentucky was to 
be abandoned to that State by Virginia on that day. Notwithstanding such 
notice, the quantity of warrants allowed to the State line and navy durmg 
the years 1790, 1791, and 1792, up to May 1 of the latter year, was only 
45,476 acres ; while such allowances, during the seven months in the year 
1830, succeeding the passage of the scrip act, were nearly double that quan- 
tity. 

It will be seen, also, by such tabular statement, that the modern allow- 
ances of laud warrants have been extremely large. In the case of the State 
line, the allowances for the ten years since May, 1830, have exceeded one- 
thud of all the allowances made during the 48 preceding years, being 297,395 
acres ; while, in the State navy, the allowances previous to May, 1830, 
amounted to 334.163 acres, and since that date to 621,985 acres — the allow- 
ances since 1830 being almost double those of the whole previous period. 
Even in the continental line, in which warrants have been granted and 
satisfied without interruption, from the year 1784 to the present period, 
and in which it would seem that all claims ought to have been pre- 
sented many years ago, the quantity of acres granted since 1792 has been 
1,981,349 ; whilt^ the allowances since May, 183U, have been 698,439 acres ; 
making all the allowances since Maj^, 1830, amount to 1,617,820 acres. This 
great excess of modern allowances over what they might be expected to have 
been, v/hile it atibrds no direct evidence of the character of the claims, is well 
calculated to excite suspicion and inquiry ; and if it should be found con- 
nected with other corroborating circumstances, may have great weight in 
producing a conviction that the modern warrants, or a great portion of 
them, have been improvidently granted. It is believed that this suspicion 
against the validity of the modern Virginia allowances, instead of being 
weakened by a comparison with the modern allowances made by the Uni- 
ted States to the troops of the continental army, will, by such comparison, 
be strengthened and confirmed. For such comparison, and its results, see 
apper.dix No. 15. 

In reference to the character of these allowances by Virginia, a very nat- 
ural inquiry suggests itself : Does the number of warrants which have been 
issued, and the quantity of land covered by them, correspond with the 
number and rank of the troops which were in the service of Virginia du- 
ring the Revolution ? or,is the number of warrants and quantity of land so 
much greater than could have been reasonably expected, aa to create a well- 



iO Rep. No. 436. 

founded belief that the warrants, and especially those granted at a late peri- 
od, have been habitually issued on loose and insufRcient evidence? 

Tins question has been brought to the notice of the authorities of Vir- 
ginia, and will be considered by the committee in connexion with the view 
which they have taken of it. 

On the 1st of December, 1834, Governor Tazewell, in his annual mcs- 
-sage to the General Assembly of Virginia, thus spoke of these claims: 
" More than fifty years have now elapsed since the origin of all such claims. 
During the whole of this long period, the several tribunals charged with 
the investigation of them have !;cen constantly open to every claimant. 
Not a year has elapsed but some have been acted upon ; and if the number 
disposed of in past time bears any proportion to that which I have been 
called upon to decide during the short period I have been in office, the 
aggregate would very far exceed the total number of just claims of this 
sort, whicii, by any possibility, could ever have existed against the Common- 
wealth. Moreover, the proceeding in such cases, from its very nature, in- 
vites to the commission of numerous frauds, which it will be impossible to 
prevent : because their detection must ever be a work of the greatest diffi- 
culty ; and because the detection, wheti made, draws down no punishment 
upon the perpetrators, as the Legislature have not thought proper to declare 
such frauds to be crimes." The Governor then reconmiends the repeal of 
all the acts on this subject; and, in case the General Assembly should not 
think proper to concur with him in their repeal, then a thorough revision 
of them. (See journals of House of Delegates, pas^e 11.) 

This part of the Governor's message was referred to a select committee, 
who made report on the same on the ISlh of December, 1834. (See Doc. 
No. 8 of tliat session, appended to the .leurnal.) This report, which is ad- 
verse to the views of Governor Tazewell, and fiworable to the continued 
allowance of the claims, was reprinted by order of the House of Representa- 
tives of the United States, on the lOth'of February, 1835, as an induce- 
ment to the appropriation of 650,001) acres of scrip made by act of March 
3, 1835; it v/as also reported to the House by the Committee on the Public 
Lands, on the 25th of March, 1S3G, accompanied by a bill for making a 
further appropriation of land scrip ; and during the present session of Con- 
gress, it has been incorporated into, and made to constitute the principal 
part of, a report from the same Connniiteo on the Public Lands, accompanied 
by bill No. 280, which appropriates five hundred thousand acres of land 
scrip towards the satisfaction of outstanding Virginia warrants. The im- 
portance which has been thus attached to this report will require that it 
should be fully examined by this committee. That part of the report which 
pertains to tlie point of inquiry now under consideration is as follows, viz : 
" in relation to the first point, whether the allowance made by Virginia 
exceeds the amount of good claims wliich could ever have existed against 
her, your committee beg leave to say, that, after an accurate and caretul ex- 
amination of the subject, they have no hesitation in saying that the amount 
of claims allowed by the Executive falls far short of the number of good 
claims, which, from the nature of tlie case, must have existed against the 
State; that the amount of good claims has not been overdrawn ; and, fur- 
thermore, that there are now outstanding good and valid claims against this 
Commonwealth. Tiiey submit, herewith, the substance of a certificate of 
General Robert Porterfield, concurred in by Chief Justice Marshall, (both 
of whom were officers in the Revolution,) that the persons entitled to land 



Rep. No. 436. It 

bounty from Viro-inia nuist li^ve amounted to at least 500 for each continental 
reo-unent. There were in service, in the Kevohilion, twenty one regnnents, 
viz- sixteen on continental estabUshment, three regiments of the Stale hne 
proper and the two western recrinients; and the State navy, composed ot twen- 
ty or twenty-five vessels. Estimalinof, therefore, the number of persons m 
each contm'entai regiment, entitled toland bounty, nt 500, and putting down 
the State navv as one regiment : after making up the difference between the 
State line and conimen'tal resfiments, (which is fir below the estimate.) the 
number of persons entitled to land bounty would be 11,000. By the cer- 
tificate of the register of the land office, hereto annexed, it appears that 
the whole number of warrants issued to 15th October last were for the 
service of about 6,130 persons : so that there would be 4,864 persons or 
their representatives, still entitled to land bounty from Virginia. (bor 
this report at length, see Ex. Doc, iNo. 189, House of Reps., 1st session 

^4th Congress.) , r .u 

This committee are not satisfied with the view here taken of the question, 
and for two reasons: the first of which is, that it does not appear to bo 
founded on well authenticated facts; and, secondly, that, it its facts were 
admitted, the proposition which the report seeks to establish, viz: " that the 
amount of land bounty allowed by the State of Virginia does not exceed 
the quantity of good claims wliich might have existed against the Common- 
wealth," still remains unproved. • i u 

This committee have so high a regard for every thing connected with the 
name of Judge Marshall, that ihey would be loath to differ from him, even 
in a case like'the present, where he had merely undertaken to make a con- 
jecture. But they think the above report has mistaken the meaning ot 
Judo-e Marshall, and that his certificate by no means warrants the result 
which the report draws from it. General Porterfield had certified thai it 
was probable there were 1,000 men belonginir to each Virginia regiment 
who were entitled to bounty lands for three vears' service, and imth covji- 
dence that there v/ere at least five hundred. This certificate was presented 
to Judge Marshall, who wrote thus: "I should not think there were a 
thousand to each regiment entitled to bounty, but the number cannot, 1 
think, be less than five hundred. I allude to the regiments actually raised 
in the Virginia line on continental establishment." Now, although there 
were at one time sixteen regiments authorized to be raised by Virginia, yet 
it is believed that no more men than were sufficient to make out the com- 
plement of six or seven full regiments were [ever raised by enlistment, in- 
cluding^ all who were enlisted "for one year, for eighteen months, and tor 
two ye!ars. Giving, therefore, a fair interpretation to the language of Judge 
Marshall, we shall have from 3,000 to 3,500 as the mimber ot persons serv- 
ing in the continental line who were entitled to bounty land, instead ot 
the 8,000 estimated in the report. 

That the number of persons entitled to this bounty in thecontinentalhne 
must have been greatly below 8,000, will seem probable, from a considera- 
tion of the number of troops furnished by Virginia after the period had ar- 
rived when the right to bounties could have accrued, and from the character 
and terms of enlistment under which they served. The earliest enlistments 
in the two first regiments raised by Virginia were in September, 1775 ; con- 
sequently, no rights tf bounties could have been acquired until September, 
1778, and those in only two out of the fifteen regiments. It appears from a 
report of General Knox, Secretary of War, of May 11, 1790, made from 



12 Rep. No. 436, 

actual returns of the army, in his department, (hat the number of troops on 
continental establishment, furnished by Virginia in the year 1778, and the 
succeeding years of the war, was as follows, viz : 

Jn the year 1778 - - - - ... 5 230 

" " 1^^9 3,973 

" - 1780 - - - - . . 2,486 

'^ 1781 -.-... 1225 

'=" 17-82 1204 

" " 1783 ...... '697 

The number of Virginia troops in service previous to 1778 is omitted, as 
unimportant, because none who were out of service before that time could 
be entitled to the bounty. It will be remembered, that a right to bounty 
could only be acquired by successive or uninterrupted service for three 
years, and by service to the end of the war. A glance at these numbers 
\f/iU show that but a fraction of the number of 8,000 could have been en- 
titled for a service to the end of the war. The report of General Knox 
does not specify the terms for which the troops in service at any period 
were enlisted; but, from the general historical tact, applicable to the Vir- 
ginia line, as well as to the lines of other States, that the wreat and almost 
fatal error in the construction of our revolutionary army was the short en- 
listments of the men, by which it almost every year 'dwindled to but a 
handful, it does not seem probable that the class who became entitled to 
bounty, by continued service under enlistments for three years, or succes- 
sive enhstments for shorter periods, could have been very large. The en- 
listments in the two first regiments were for one year : in the seven next 
regiments, for two years ; and, although in the six additional regiments 
which began to be recruited in .lannary, 1777, enlistments were to' be for 
three years rtnd the war, still enlistments for shorter periods also continued 
until after the passage of the resolutions of October 3 and 21, 1780. Be- 
sides this, a considerable portion of the line, during each campaign, was 
composed of men draughted from tije militia, or volunteers for temporary 
service ; all which are included in the foregoing returns. When these 
flicts are taken into consideration, together with the facts appearing from 
the foregoing returns, that, in 1781, as soon as short enlistmenls and 
draughts had been wholly discarded, the number of troops in service be- 
came reduced below 1,300 in number, it is submitted, as more probable, 
that the number who could have been entitled to the Virginia bounties was 
below 3,500, than above that number. 

The committee will now proceed to the second and most important objec- 
tion to the estimate and arguments wliich they have quoted from the fore- 
going report to the Virginia House of Delegates ; which is, that, if it were ad- 
nntted to be true that there were 11,000 honest claims for bounty land, and 
but 6,000 of them had been allowed, it would not by any means follow that 
'• the amount due on the good claims'' had not been gready exceeded. This 
will be readily seen. The average quantity of bounty land due to privates 
may be stated at 150 acres each, while the average bounty of officers is 
about 3,500 acres each. Now, if these 1 1,000 claims had all been allowed 
to privates, the amount of land required to satisfy them would be 1,650.000 
acres ; whereas, if the same claims had been allowed to officers, the quantity 
of land required to satisfy them would be 38,500,000 acres. Even if but 
the 6j000 claitns before mentioned had been allowed to officers, the quan- 



>'»fcro.ai»ro Tim. - 



Rep. No. 436. 13 

tity of land required would be 21,000,000 acres — more than twelve times 
the quantity required to satisfy 11,000 claims to privates. Hence the fld- 
lacy^ not to say absurdity, of estimatino: the number of claims in the lump, 
without undertakinij to separate the officers from the privates. It seems 
surprising that the committee who made the foregoing report should have 
overlooked this striking defect in their argument, and should have wholly 
forborne to inquire into the number of claims which had been allowed to 
officers, especially as that committee must have seen that, while the tempta- 
tion to obtain the allowance of unfounded claims to officers was verv great, 
the successful prosecution of a single claim being often a fortune, that of a 
private might little more than pay the expense of obtaining it. From the 
smallness of the allowance to privates, it may very well liave been that a 
portion of their bounties may not have been claimed ; whereas no such pre- 
sumption arises in the case of officers. 

This committee, so far as the materials within their reach will enable 
them, will endeavor to supply this important omission in the foregoing re- 
port. 

They will, in the first place, endeavor to ascertain the probable number 
of officers, who, for services for three years, or during the war, became en- 
titled to bounty land from Virginia. 

., The Virginia convention which met in July, 1775, ordered two regiments 
of regulars to be raised. In December, 1775, the raising of seven other 
regiments was ordered, -six of which," says Judge Marshall, in his Life of 
Washington, "in the first place, and afterwards the remaining three, were 
taken into continental service." At the October session in 1776, an act 
passed for raising six additional regiments, making fifteen in the whole. In 
September, 1778, these fifteen regiments were reduced to eleven, and the su- 
pernumerary officers discharged. 

If we suppose the officers to have been immediately appointed under the 
laws directing the regiments to be raised, (which is only probable in a por- 
tion of the number,) these terms of three years' service would expire as fol- 
lows, to wit: the terms of the two first regiments in August, 1778 ; of the 
seven regiments, in January, 1^79 ; and of the six last regiments, in Novem- 
ber, 1779. At the reduction, therefore, in September, 1778, only those offi- 
cers of the two first regiments raised in 1775 could, by any possibility, be 
entitled to bounty land. Among the Washington Papers in the State De- 
partment (Arrangements, vol. 7) is a list of the officers of the two first regi- 
ments, with the dates of their appointments ; from which it appears that 
only four officers, in both those regiments, were appointed in time to have 
performed three years' service at the period of the arrangement ib Septem- 
ber, 1778 ; and of those four, the names of throe are found on the list of 
officers in the Bounty Land Office as having served to ihe end of the war. 
One officer only could, therefore, have been discharged at that arrangement 
entitled to the bounty ; all others who were discharged, having porlormed 
less than three 3'ears' service, could not be entitled. This statement does 
not include the officers of two companies of riflemen, who in the sunmier of 
1775 joined the array before Boston, under General Washington, and were 
taken into continental service by resolution of Congress. These ollicers 
were afterwards incorporated into one of the beforenamed regiments ; and 
it is not impossible that some two or three of them might have been dis- 
charged at the arrangement in September, 1773, entitled to the Viroinia 
bounty. With these exceptions, it is believed the officers entitled to bounty 



14 Rep. No. 436. 

land from Virginia must be sought only among those retained in service in 
September, 1778, and those who afterwards joined the army. 

It may be here remarked, that the officers who were discharged at this 
arrangement as supernumeraries were not entitled, as such, to land from 
Virginia ; because the Virginia resokitions promising the bounty were pass- 
ed subsequent to the arrangement, and they made no provision for super- 
numeraries, but only for those who were in actual service for three years, 
or during the war. 

We have historical information tliat there was a great deficiency of offi- 
cers as well as men in the fifteen Viri^inia regiments in 1778. The follow- 
ing extracts from the letters of General Washington to the President of Con- 
gress will throw some light on the condition of the army, and of the Vir- 
ginia line in particular, at that period : 

>' Valley Forge, March 24, 1778. 

" As it is not improper for (congress to have some idea of the present 
temper of the army, it may not be amiss to remark, in this place, that since 
the month of August last, between two and three hundred officers have re- 
signed their commissions, and many others were with difficulty dissuaded 
from it. In the Virginia line only, not less than six colonels, as good as 
any in the serviccj have left it lately ; and more, I am told, are in the humor 
to do so." 

"Valley Forge, April 10, 1778. 

" I can with truth aver that scarcely a day passes without the offer of two 
or three commissions ; and my advices from the eastward and southward are, 
that numbers who had gone home on furlough mean not to return, but are 
establishing themselves in more lucrative employments. The disadvan- 
tages resulting from the frequent resignations in the Virginia line, the 
change of commanding officers to tlie regiments, and other causes equally 
distressing, have injured that corps beyond conception, and have been the 
means of reducing very respectable regiments, in some instances, to a mere 
handfid of men.'' 

"Valley Forge, April 21, 177S. 
"The spirit of resigning commissions has long been at an alarming 
height, and increases daily. The Virginia line has sustained a violent 
shock in this instance— not less than ninety have already resigned to me." 

In point of fact, the whole number of officers discharged at the reduction 
of the Virginia line in September, 1778. as appears by the arrangement it- 
self, which will be more particularly noticed hereafter, was forty-five ; not 
more than three or four of whom, as before shown, could have been three 
years in the service. 

The committee have been thus particular, because they deem it of import- 
ance to ascertain what number of persons, as officers of the Virginia con- 
tinental line, were in a situation in which they could become entitled to 
bounty lands from the State. 

It is ascertained, then, that no officers (with the unimportant exceptions 
beforemcntioned) could be entitled to Virginia bounty lauds for three years' 
service, but such as were retained in service after the reduction of the line 
in September, 1778. 



Bep. No. 436. 15^ 

An attempt will now be made to ascertain the number of officers who 
could for three years' service, and for the service of during the war, become 
entitled to bounty. If we suppose the eleven regiments of infantry, of 
which the line was composed after September, 177S, to have had their full 
complement of officers allowed by the resolve of May 27, 1778, twenty nine 
to each regiment, the whole number in the line would be 319. If to these 
be added the number of officers found by the rolls to have been in service 
in September, 1778, in the ten companies of Colonel Harrison's artillery 
regiment, which were officered from Virginia, (41 in number.) we shall have 
360 as the whole number in the infantry and artillery. If, in order to be 
sure to include all the Virginia officers of other corps, such as Lee's legion, 
Armand's corps, &c., we add to this number the complement of two full 
regiments of cavalry, of thirty officers each, we shall have the number of 
420 as the highest number of officers that could have been in service at any 
one time after September, 1778. It is believed the actual number was never 
so large. 

Now, of the 360 infantry and artillery officers, who, by the arrangement 
of September, 1778, and by returns in the Pension Office, are found to have 
been in service in September, 177S, 184, (being rather more than one-half,) 
are also found to have served to the end of the war. If, preserving this 
proportion nearly, we allow one-half of the whole number of officers re- 
tained in service in September, 1778, to have served to the end of the war, 
we shall have 210 officers who became entitled to bounties for services 
throuijhout the whole war, and in whose places no other officers could be 
entitled ; and 210 other officers, in whose places changes were made, and 
in which more than one full set of officers might have served. AVhen it is 
considered that the tlu'ee years' terms of a large proportion of the officers 
could not expire until more than a year after September, 1778; that, at each 
subsequent reduction of the army, the vacancies that might then exist would 
not be filled by any one ; that, after the dismission, as supernumeraries, in 
May, 1782, of 12 lieutenants from each regiment, k\v, if any, new officers 
were appointed ; and when it is also considered that there was no induce- 
ment to an officer to make his term of service extend to three years, the 
bounty for that service not having been promised till the May session of 
1782 — it does not seem probable that more than from one-third to one-half 
of the places of these 210 officers would have been filled by two different 
officers entitled to the bounty. Supposing one-half of the places to have 
been thus filled, the number of officers of this class entitled to bounty 
would be 315. But still further, in order to be sure of having the estimate 
sufficiently large to cover all casualties and omissions, and all errors of cal- 
culation, if any, let the number of two full sets of these 210 officers be sup- 
posed entitled. This will be an addition of 105 to the foregoing liberal esti- 
mate, making 420 officers to supply those 210 places ; which, added to the 
number 210 who served through the whole war, will make 630 officers, by 
whom it may be supposed the land bounty might, by possibility, have been 
justly claimed. 

By the report of the register of the Virginia land office, of the 10th of 
February, 1840, before referred to, (appendix No. 4, C.) it appears that the 
number of persons for whose services, as officers, warrants have issued since 
1782, is as follows, viz : 



16 Rep. No. 436. 

Officers of the State line - - - . . 234 

Officers of the State navy --..'. 968 



502 
Officers of the continental Hne - - . . j ^3q 

Making in the whole -.._._ j ^qq 

officers ; and that the number of other persons for whose service's warrknts 
have issued is 4,959 ; making 6,491 allowances in the whole, and beina one 
officer to every three men and a fraction of another. '' 

If, from the foregoing number of 1,030 officers in the continentalhne 
who have received bounty from Virginia, be deducted the number of 630 
whidi, according to previous calculation, is (bund to be the highest number 
ot officers which could have been entitled, we shall find an excess of 400— 
a number which lacks hut 20 of being the full complement of officers of ail 
the Virginia continental troops which were in service after the arranaement 
in September, 177S ; and is probably a greater number than actually beloncr- 
ed to the line at any period after that date. ' "^ 

But if the quantity of land which has been granted for these bounties be 
taken as the data of the calculation, tlieexcss of the i^rrants over what (hev 
ought to have been appears no lesi^ decided and striking tlian is the excess 
n\ the number of officers. 

To avoid being tedious, the committee have submitted the details of their 
calculation m the appendix, (No. 6;) from which it appears, that if from the 
quantity ot land clanns which have iieen allowed by Virginia for services in 
the continental line there be deducted the quantity of lands which would 
satisfy the bounties due 2,724 non-commissioned officers and privates, the 
(luantity of land remaining for ofncers' bounties would be sufficient to satisfy 
ihe full complement of 47 regiments of infantry. It further appears, thai 
if the number of persons not officers, stated l)y tlie reirister of the Virginia 
and ofhce to have received land warrants, to wit, 4,959, were supposed to 
he actually entitled to them, and three fourths of them were for services in 
(he continental line, and a calculaiion were made on that basis, the result 
would be, that, deducting the quantify of lands to which the non-commis- 
sioned ofhcers and privates would be entitled, from the quantity of allowances 
before mentioned, there would still remain sufficient lands to satisfy the war- 
raiHs of over 45 regiments of officers— equal to more than three full sets of 
officers which were in service at any period of the war when any of the 
officers could be entitled to the bountv. 

But tliere is one further test bv which the question whether a greater 
amoitnt of claims lias been allowed by Virginia than could have existed 
«gainst her, may be tried ; the result of which seems very conclusive. 

Among the documents of the Virginia House of Deleoates, of the session 
commencing m December, 1833, (No. 30,) the committee find a list of ilie 
names of the officers of the continental and State lines, and navy, who have 
received bounty lands from the State for revolutionary services, with the 
amount ot land granted to each, the date of the cTrant,'and the description 
of the service for which it was obtained, down to September, 1833. l-'rom 
the register of the Virginia land office, the committee have lately been fur- 
mshed with a smiilar list from September, 1S33, to the present period. 

It will be recollected that, by the act of the Virginia Assemblv. passed in 
May, 1782. reci'ed in the beginning of liiis report," the land bounty to officers 



Rep. No. 436. 17 

Avhich had before been limited to those who should serve to the end of the 
war, was not only granted for three years' servic, but that provision was 
made for the additional grant of the quantity of one-sixth of the oriofinat 
bounty to all officers who should serve for one year more than six. Now, 
a recurrence to what has been hereinbefore stated in reference to the com- 
mencement of the terms of service of the several reiriments, and of the non- 
appointment of new officers towards the close of the war, will make it very 
clear that any officer in the Virginia line, who shall be found to have become 
entitled to this additional bounty, by a service of seven years, or of anv 
time over six years, must have taken up the whole term of the office which 
he filled in the army, without leaving any space for any other officer to be- 
come entitled to the three years, or to the end of the war, bounty. The com- 
mittee find by the Virginia lists of officers' bounties before mentioned, that 
the additional bounty for more than six years' service has been granted to 
370 officers in the continental line, being fifty-one more than sufficient to 
supply the 11 regiments of infa.ntry, with their full comj)lenient of officers. 
If this number 370 be deducted from 420, tlie highest number of officers 
which could have been in service at any one time a'ter officers could be en- 
titled to bounty, it will leave 50 as the number of officers, out of the changes 
in whose places is to be made up the right to bountyof the6G0 remaining offi- 
cers who have received it : this, it is very clear, is altogether impossible. There 
is but one answer to this argument, which is this: that the bounties for more 
than six years' service have been granted where the service had not been 
performed, and that, therefore, it is no true test of the number of officers who 
might have been entitled to bounties; which answer is itself a full admis- 
sion that the warrants have been improvidently issued, and that no confi- 
dence can be placed in the justness of the claims on which they have been 
granted. 

The committee have not the data before them for making a similar ex- 
amination to the foregoiUij into the number and character of the bounties 
granted to the troops of the Stale line. Nor do they deem such examina- 
tion necessary. It is understood tliat the evidence required, and the course 
of proceeding adopted, in the allowance of claims for warrants, is alike iri 
both lines; and the character of the allowances, whether good or bad. is 
doubtless the same. 

But the committee will call the attention of the House to a few facts in 
reference to the State navy bounties. 

An act of Virginia, of November session, 1781, made provision for paying 
the officers of the army and nnvy such sums as might be due them of their 
current pay, and also for making good the depreciation of their pay for five 
years, commencing on the 1st of January, 1777, and ending the 1st of 
January, 1782. That is to say, they were to receive such sums as might 
remain unpaid of their regular pay; and as the payments which had been 
previously made them had been in paper money, which was greatly below 
par, they were to have the loss they had sustained on it made up to them, 
according to a scale of depreciation inserted in the act. The accounts of the 
officers were to be adjusted by the auditors of public accounts: and as the 
depreciation pay could be obtained through no other channel than this ad- 
justment of the auditors, tJiere is no reason to doubt that all officers who 
had served at any time during that period applied for and received it. The 
payments were made in State certiticates ; a register of which, showing the 
name of the officer, the date of the settlement, the sum paid, and the nawie 
2 



18 Rep. No. 436. 

of the person to whom the certificate was delivered, was kept, and has been 
preserved : a copy of which may be found in the Pension Office. (See ap- 
pendix No. 7.) 

This Hst contains the names of 74 officers of the navy. That it includes 
the names of all the officers who could have been entitled to bounty, can- 
not well be doiibted. The first appointments in the navy were made after 
the 1st of January, 1776; and, at the end of the year 1781, "the officers of 
the navy, of every denomination,'' were ordered to be disciiarged from the 
service, "except such as were necessary for the command of the lookout 
boat Liberty."' (9 Hen. 83; 11 Hen. 450.) Consequently no officer, except 
those left in command of the lookout boat, (3 or 4 at most,) could have been 
entitled to bounty for three years' service, without also bein^ etititled to at 
least two years' depreciation pay ; for, if he entered the service in Janu- 
ary, 1776, he must, in order to complete his term of three years, have served 
through the years 1777 and 1778. Now, as this depreciation pay for the 
years 1777 and 1778 could not have amounted to less than 70 per cent, of 
the original pay, it is incredible that a single officer entitled to it should 
have omitted to claim and receive it. 

jMtliough this list of officers may be relied on as containing ail the offi- 
cers of the navy who could be entitled to bounty lands, yet it is not con- 
fined to those oflicers, but includes all others who, for shorter periods than 
three years' service, settled their accounts with the auditors. If the fluctu- 
ations among the officers in the navy were as great as among those of the 
army, (and the committee see no reason to doubt that they were so,) it is 
probable that about one-half of the 74 officers contained on the register 
•were officers who performed less than three years' service, and that the ac- 
tual number of officers entitled to the State bounty could not have exceeded 
40, or 50 at the most. 

Now, from an examination of the lists of bounties before mentioned, it 
appears that land warrants have been granted to 2(38 persons as officers in^ 
the State navy, of which number 92 were granted previous to the passage 
of the act for issuing scrip in May. 1830, and 176 since that date. This 
number of 268 officers is so extravagantly beyond the number which can 
be supposed to have been entitled, as to force upon the mind Ifie conviction 
that the great mass of the warrants have improvidently and improperly 
issued. And it may be observed, in reference to the grants of bounties, not 
only for services in the navy, but also those in the Stale Ime, that, as there 
was a period of ten years, from 1782 to 1792, in which these grants were 
freely made, and a period of eight years, from 1784 to 1792, when these 
Avarrants might have been as freely located ; and as the Virginia authori- 
-ties of that day are known to have been extremely liberal in their allow- 
ance of bounties, there can be little reason to suppose that any considera- 
ble number of just claims remained unpresented and unadjusted at that 
period. On the contrary, the committee think there is strong reason to be- 
lieve that the great mass of warrants which have been granted since 1792, 
and especially those which iiave been granted since the act of May, 1830^ 
and for the satisfaction of which so many hundred thousand acres of land 
have been repeatedly appropriated, ha\^e issued for services whicli never 
were performed in conformity with the laws of Virginia promising the 
iountiesj and to which the persons receiving them had no just claim. 

From the foregoing facts and circumstances, the committee have come 
io the conclusion, in conformity with that intimated by Governor Tazewell 



Rep. No. 436. 19 

in his message before quoted, and contrary to that of the committee who 
made report on that message, that afar "greater amount of land bounty- 
has been allowed by the State of Virginia than the quantity of good claims 
"which ever could have existed against her." 

In order to ascertain the particular character of the evidence on which 
it has been usual to grant land warrants, the committee have availed them- 
selves of the testimony in sundry cases, wliich, having been first used before 
the Executive of Virginia, in obtainhig land allowances, has been since pre- 
sented to Congress in support of claims to commutation. This testimony 
will be examined hereafter in connexion with commutation claims. From 
this evidence, the committee think the conviction which is produced by 
the excessive number and quantity of these bounty-land warrants, that they 
have been improvidently granted, will be strengthened and confirmed. 

It is not the intention of this committee to charge upon the authorities 
of Virginia any positive design to defraud this Government, by the volun- 
tary allowance of unfounded claims. Nevertheless, the committee cannot 
resist the conviction, that the cliecks which the Virginia authorities have 
provided to guard the Treasury of the United States against such claims, 
have been of so slight and inefficient a character as to interpose no serious 
obstacle lo tiieir allowance. 

Commutation. 

By resolutions of the old Congress of the 3d and 21st of October, 17S0, 
a new arrangement of tiie continental army was directed ; and the latter 
resolution provided that the officers of the line, who sliould continue 
in the service to the end of tlit war, or who should be reduced (left out of 
command) by such new arrangement, should be allowed Jialf pay for life. 
On the 17th of January, 1781, ti-e benefit of this resolution was extended 
to certain officers in the hospital department and medical staff'; and on the 
8th of May, 17S1, to chaplains; and subsequently to all officers of the line 
who might become supernumerary, under the resolve of the 23d of April, 

1782, and also under the arrangement ordered by resolutions of the 7ih of 
August and 19th ol November, 1782. The provision of half pay for life 
being viewed in an unfavorable light in many of the States, and appre- 
hensions existing in the army that it might not be paid, the officers petition- 
ed Congress that it might be commuted for its equivalent in a compensation 
for a limited term of years, or for a sum in gross ; and on the 22d of March, 

1783, Congress came to the resolution that the officers of the army, to whom 
half pay for life had been promised, should be entitled to receive five years' 
full pay in lieu of it; which full pay for five years is Himiliarly denomina- 
ted "commutation," or "commutatic^i pay." 

Commutation, then, was promised to two classes of officers : first, to those 
icho should serve to the end of the war ; and, secondly, to those who had 
become supernumerary under such reduction.-'i of the army as had hap- 
ye7ied afttr the passage of the resolution of October 21, 1780. 

It will be perceived from this statement, that there is nothing in tiie na- 
ture of these claims that should confine them to persons from any particu- 
lar State of the Union ; and, in fact, claims have been presented and allow- 
ed from various sections of the country, though a great majority of all the 
cases have been for services of officers in the Virginia line. In obe- 
dience to the resolution under which this report is made, the committee 



20 Rep. No. 435. 

Have confined their inquiries to claims of Virginia, though they doubt not 
the claims for commutation are of a like character, from whatever quar- 
ter they may come. 

At the close of the revolutionary war, the same provision was made for 
paying these claims that was provided for the monthly pay of the officers, 
and tliey were usually settled in the same account. They were included 
in final-settlement certificates, drawing interest Irom the time of disbanding 
the army ; and these certificates were'afterwards taken up, by being funded 
under the act of August, 1790. From the year 1794, when these claims 
became barred from adjustment at the Treasury, by the act of limitation of 
the 27th of March, 1792, up to the year 1S2S, three claims had been allow- 
ed by special acts of Congress — one' to Colonel Dubois, in June, 1794 ; one 
to Philip Turner, a surgeon, in ISOS ; and another to the widow of Alex- 
ander Hamilton, in 1816. In 1828, commutation pay was allowed by spe- 
cial acts in three cases ; and there were allowances in five cases in 1830 ; 
ten in 1832 ; seven in 1833 ; fourteen in 1834; four in 1836 ; and sixteen 
in 1838 — in the whole, sixty-two claims, on which has been paid at the 
Treasury $272,551 22. (See appendix, No. 8.) There were pending at 
the last session, in the House, thirty-six bills granting commutation, favora- 
bly reported on by the Committee on Revolutionary Claims ; and in the 
Senate ten other bills, also favorably reported by the corresponding com- 
mittee of that body ; besides wliich, there were in both branches fifty-eight 
claims pending, on which the committees had not then acted. 

The Committee on Revolutionary Claims of the House have, heretofore, 
not only recommended the ailo vance of the principal, but have urged the 
addition of interest, computed a cording to the principles of the funding 
act, by which the original claim is more than trebled. 

The revival of these claims after they had slept for nearly half a cen- 
tury — not often by the officer himself, but usually by his heirs, or perhaps 
as frequently by some adventurer in their name — and their constant and 
rapid increase from year to year, as a knowledse of their successful prose- 
cution becomes more widely extended, seem to call for a critical and thorough 
examination of them. 

The first inquiry that naturally arises on the presentation of a claim for 
commutation, is, why has it been so long delayed'/ If the claim is now 
due, it was due fifty years ago : why was it not then presented and allowed ? 

In recurring to the history of the early provisions for the settlement of 
this class of claims, tlie committee look in vain for any extraordinary ob- 
stacle in the way of their adjustment and liquidation at that period. 

On the '1th of July, 1783, soon after receiving information of the signing 
of the })rovisional articles of peace, and four months before the army was 
disbanded, the Paymaster General was authorized and directed "to adjust 
and finally settle all accounts whatsoever between the United States and 
the officers and soldiers of the American army, so as to include all and 
every detnand which they, or either of them, might have by virtue of the 
several resolutions and acts of Congress relating thereto ;" and he was to 
give certificates of the sums found due on such settlements, which certifi- 
cates were to bear an interest of six per cent. In February, 1782, Congress 
had provided for the appointment of a commissioner of accounts for each 
State in the Union : which commissioners were to go into their respective 
States, and " to give public and early notices of the times and places of their 
r-i'.ting. at'.d the districts within which they settled accounts, that as well" 



Rep. No. 436. 21 

(says the resolve) " the public officers as the private individuals may have 
an opportunity to attend." These commissioners acted as deputies to the 
Paymaster General, who was also styled commissioner of army accounts, 
and by whom they were furnished with blank certificates, to be filled up 
and delivered to the officers and soldiers in liquidation of their respective 
claims. But, as it might be impracticable or inconvenient for all persons 
having claims to attend in person on the commissioners, and especially for 
the non-commissioned officers and privates, whose claims, compared with 
those of the officers, were small in amount, it was provided by a resolve of 
November, 3, 1783, that the certificates of sums due to the officers and 
soldiers of the different lines of the army should be delivered to regimental 
agents, to be by them delivered to the individuals to whom they belonged, 
or deposited, for their benefit, in such manner as the Governors of the 
respective States might direct. Mr. Z. Turner appears to have been the 
first commissioner of accounts for V^irginia, on whose resignation Andrew 
Dunscomb was appointed, by whom all the settlements with the officers 
and soldiers of the army within that State appear to have been made. 
These commissioners were furnished with the muster-rolls and all other 
papers in the possession of the Government, or abstracts of them, relating 
to the lines of their respective States; and the officers who might have 
claims not appearing on these papers, if any, were stimulated to present 
them by the passage of a resolve, declaring that all claims not presented by 
the first day of August, 1786, should be for ever barred ; and the commis- 
sioner of army accounts was directed " to give public notice of this resolve 
in nil the Slates for the term of six months.^' On the 22d of .hily, 1787, a 
further time of one year was given for presenting these claims ; and on the 
27rh of March, 1792, a further time of two years was granted. 

In January, 1834, the Committee on Revolutionary Claims of this House 
reported a bill providing for the adjustment and allowance of claims for 
commntation at the War Department. In tlieir report, which accompanied 
the bill, there is found the following statement in reference to the early set- 
tlement of these claims: 

"Those officers who remained in actual command until the army was 
formally disbanded had no difficulty in establishing their claims, and, with 
probably k\v exceptions, received commutation certificates. But there were 
many who had retired at different periods, entitled to half pay for life, and 
therefore to the five years' commutation; and many others, who from va- 
rious causes had no actual command at the close of the war, but who, as 
they did not resign, nor abandon the service, nor forfeit their commissions, 
but continued ready and willing to serve, and were inactive only because 
they had nothing to do, nobody to command, and no orders to obey, ought 
properly to be considered as continuing in service, and entitled to all the 
benefits of such continuance. The officers of both these classes were dis- 
persed at the close of the war, many of them at a distance from the account- 
ing officers, many of them (and especially of those who had retired) igno- 
rant of their right to commutation which had been accepted for them by the 
votes of their brother officers. Some were discouraged by the narrow con- 
struction which the financial condition of the country had induced Con- 
gress to give to their own resolutions ; others by the small comparative val- 
ue of the certificates, which, when obtained, promised little reinuneration 
for any trouble or expense which they might cost." 



22 Rep. No. 436. 

This committee have looked in vain for satisfactory proof of the state- 
ments contained m this extract from the report of 1834. 'I'hey are persua- 
ded their predecessors must have adopted them without sufficient examina- 
tion. They belong not to the history of the period of which they purport 
to speak, but are of modern and recent oriorin. They are only supported by 
vague and uncertain parol testimony, 2:iven after the lapse of fifty years, and 
by'the interested declarations of claimants and their attorneys. 

The officers, as well those who had been reduced as those who contin- 
ued in service to the end of the war, had, as has already been siiown, abun- 
dant notice that the Government was ready to adjust and settle their claims, 
and full opportunity to present them within their respective States. To say 
that any of the officers were iofuorant of their rights, is a gratuitous asser- 
tion, of the reality of which the committee cannot but be incredulous. The 
provision of half pay for life had been the subject of discussion and of po- 
litical declamation throughout the country, from the time of the passage of 
the resolutions granting it in 1780, and had become extremely unpopular in 
some of the States. The apprehension that, from its odiousncss, it might 
not be paid, had produced great excitement in the army, which, fanned as 
it was by the famous Newburg address, threatened the very existence of the 
Government. It is to be remembered, that the meeting of the officers of the 
army, called by General Washington, in consequence of that address, and to 
counteract its effects, was holden on the 15th of March 1783; and that on 
the representation to Congress of the claims of the army, made by General 
Washington, in obedience to a resolution of the officers adopted at that meet- 
ing, ihe'resoive of the 22d of March, 1783, which gave commutation, was 
adopted. This whole transaction was well known and understood through- 
out the country. It formed an era, and, from its peaceful and happy ter- 
mination, a proud one in the history of the Revolution. In May thereafter, 
meetings of the arranged and retiring officers of the Virginia line, of which 
public and probably private notice by letters must have been given, were 
held at Fredericksburg, in obedience to the requirements of the commuta- 
tion resolutions, at which the commutation was unanimously accepted, and 
notice of its acceptance transmitted to Congress, (for these proceedings of 
the Virginia officers, see appendix No. 9 ;) and like meetings were held 
in the other Slates. 

Under all these circumstances, it seems utterly incredible that a single 
individual of so intelligent a body of men as the officers of the army are 
known to have been, c'ould be ignorant of the provision which had been 
made for his benefit. But, in order to make this plea of ignorance of any 
avail, it must be extended to the provision of half pay also. For, whether 
the claim was for half pay for life, or lor commutation, it was equally the 
interest of the officer to present it; and to suppose the claim of an officer 
remained unpresented from ignorance of its existence, is to suppose that 
the officer not only never heard of the commutation resolutions, but was 
also ignorant that the very resolution under which he had retired from the 
army'had provided for him the half pay for hfe ; which supposition is so 
palpablv incredible as to involve an absolute absurdity. Nor does the ex- 
cuse offered for the non-presentation of these claims, for the reason that 
they were deemed of little value, seem to have any better foundation. After 
the organization of the Government under the present constitution, when 
the claims for commutation were of par value, and known to be so, an op- 
portunity, for the term of two years, from the 27th of March, 1792, to the 



Rep. No. 436. 23 

27th of March, 1794, was afforded for their presentation and allowance at 
the Treasury. We have a Ust of all the claims adjusted during this period, 
which, for personal services in the army and navy, were over 1,400 in. 
■number. Among these, there are found but 14 allowances for commuta- 
tion, (a fraction more than the average of one from each State ;) which, 
seems to be conclusive evidence that very few claims could have beea 
omitted under the old Government. 

The committee will close their remarks on this subject by a quotatioa 
from the report of the Committee of Claims of the House of Representatives 
of December 21. 1797, which committee had been instructed to inquire into 
the expediency of excepting certain classes of claims from the operation of 
the statutes of limitation. The report, the whole of which is worthy of a 
careful consideration, may be found in the State Papers, volume — , on 
Claims, page 202. Treating of the adjustment of claims under the old 
Confederation, the report says : 

" It must be acknowledged by all, that, during those periods, every op- 
portunity which could rationally have been expected was made for the 
accommodation of individuals having claims against the public, to enable 
them to obtain proper settlements of their demands. The journals of Con- 
gress under the Confederation will abundantly justify this remark. Com- 
missioners were appointed, with special or general powers, to settle the 
-claims of individuals in all the departments ; and, in every instance, the 
powers given were plenary and explicit. Sufficient time was given for 
every one to obtain information and pursue his remedy ; and ample oppor- 
tunity was given for all to substantiate their claims, or at least to present 
abstracts of them, which would liave prevented their being foreclosed by 
the acts designed eventually to operate upon them. The cases cannot be 
numerous in which the want of opportunity to bring forward claims can be 
justly pleaded as an excuse for the omission." 

This conmiittee will not say there may not have been well-founded com- 
mutation claims, which were not presented, either under the Confederation, 
or under the act of March, 1792; though, from what has already been 
shown, as well as from what will hereafter appear, they are of opinion such 
claims must have been extremely rare. But the committee do say, that; 
every rational presumption is against the validity of any claim which was 
not then presented ; and that the holder of such a claim, now first bringing 
it to the notice of the Government, after it had slept unheeded for more 
than half a century, should be required to establish it by proof of the high- 
est and clearest nature. 

The necessity of establishing such a rule for the examination of these 
claims will appear to be still stronger, when the greatly superior advantages 
possessed by the accounting officers of that early period, lor detecting the 
invalidity of unfounded claims, are considered. 

The accounting officers were then intimately acquainted with the history 
of the particular corps and lines of the army with which they were required, 
to settle, and probably with the particular services of almost every officer 
composing them. They had before them the original muster rolls and 
other returns of the army, showing the services of the officers, and, in case- 
of doubt, could readily call on livmg testimony to solve it. We have none 
of these advantages. Conflagration and pillage have destroyed and scat- 
.tered the muster-rolls and other original returns of the revolutionary army, 
and time has closed over all personal knowledge and parol evidence of the 



^4 Rep. No. 436. '^ 

transactions of that period, but such as must necessarily be of a very un- 
certain and unsatisfactory character. 

If the original muster and pay-rolls of the army which were in existence 
at the close of the war had been preserved, we should doubtless have the 
means of ascertaining the true character of most, if not all, of the claims 
which have been presented for commutation. 

In relation to the destruction of these papers by the burning of the War 
Office in November, 1800, we have a report of the Secretary of War, of the 
17th February, 1801. In describing the papers destroyed, under the head 
of " Relating (o the accounts of the old army," we have the following : 

'• Several cases containing muster and pay-rolls, others containing ac- 
counts and vouchers of sundry paymasters and agents for paying troops, 
and one case containing individual settlements made by the late Paymaster 
General and commissary of army accounts."' The Secretary then proceeds : 
^' These papers could only be of use in the examination of claims for ser- 
vices prior to the establishment of the present Government, ivhich, if not 
already settled, are all barred and foreclosed by acts of limitation. This 
Joss, therefore, will not materially affect the unsettled accounts of the Uni- 
ted States." (State Papers, 1 xMiscellaneous, 232.) 

In relation to the injury which the remaining revolutionary papers re- 
ceived by the capture of this city during the late war, we have the follow- 
ing from the report of the Secretary of War of October 27, 1814 : 

" 1 have the honor to state, that the books and papers belonging to this 
office were removed, and are now in a state of safety, excepting a part of 
the papers and army accounts appertaining to the revolutionary war. which 
had been saved from the flames on the burning of the house occupied by 
the War Department in 1800. It is not probable that the loss of these pa- 
pers can have any effect in the adjastment of the unsettled accounts of the 
ITnited States, as the claims, if any, which might arise under them, liave all 
been barred by act of limitation^ (State Papers, 2 Miscellaneous, 251.) , 

It had not entered into the imagination of either of these Secretaries, that, 
after a lapse of fifty years from their date, the claims depending for the 
proof of their truth or falsity on the existence of those revolutionary papers, 
were to be again revived, and their justice and validity to be presiuned, in. 
consequence of the absence of those very papers. Such, nevertheless, is 
the fact. 

In the report of the Committee on Revolutionary Claims made to Con- 
gress in 1834, before mentioned, the character of these claims is thus de- 
scribed : 

" The claims now presented are generally in behalf of officers who can 
be shown to have been in active service up to the close of 1780, or during 
the year 1781, and some of them in 1782, and even as late as the spring of 
1783, but cannot afterwards be traced in active command. The question 
of fact, in relation to all these cases, is, from what cause did they cease to 
be in active service at the.se periods 'V 

This question of fact the committee proposed to settle, not by the usual 
rule of requiring the claimant to make out his case by proof, but by the 
following rules of presjimption, which were incorporated in the bill they 
reported : 

" First, It being established that as officer of the continental line was in 
service, as such, on the 21st of October, 1780, and until the new arrange- 
ment of the army provided for by the resolution of that date was effected,^ 



Rep. No. 436. 25- 

he shall he presumed, unless it appear that he was then retained in service, 
to have been reduced by that arrangement, and, therefore, entitled to half 
pay for life, or the commutation in lieu of it." 

'' Second. A continental officer, proved to have remained in service after 
the arrangement of the army under said resolution of October, 17S0, shall 
be presumed to have served to the end of the war, or to have retired, enti- 
tled to half pay for life, unless it appear that he died in the service, or re- 
signed, or was dismissed, or voluntarily abandoned an active command in 
the service of the United States." 

In reference to these presumptions, the report holds this language : 

" The resignation of an officer ought to appear upon some record. If it 
does so appear^ it puts an end to all the other presumptions and determines 
the case, unless the entry is found to have been erroneously made. If it 
does not appear upon record, and is not otherwise proved, there is no rea- 
son why it should take the place of other presumptions, more favorable to 
the officer, and, considering the consequences of resignation, much more 
reasonable. In the absence of proof, it is not to be presumed that an offi- 
cer would volnniardy renounce the advantages held out io those who shoidd 
jiot resign ; and as the war approached its termination, the presumption 
against resitjuation became strouijer." 

Here, then, we iiave a presiiniption raised against the resignation of an 
officer, because of the great advantages held out to him by the hall-pay reso- 
lutions, on which presumption he is to be adjudged entitled to commuta- 
tion ; whereas, the starting-point, on which the report places the propriety 
of allowing these claims to be presented at all, at this late day, is the con- 
trary presumption, that the officer was either ignorant of the provision in 
his behalf at the close of the war, or deemed it of too little importance to 
apply for it. Surely, a class of claims which require such logic to sustain 
them cannot but be viewed with suspicion. 

The bill reported by the committee in 1S31, from which the foregoing 
rules of evidence have been copied, was debated in Committee of the 
Whole on the state of the Union, and reported to the House ; when the de- 
bate was renewed, and the bill finally recommitted to the Committee of the 
Whole on the state of the Union, by a decided majority. 'J'his last vote 
was equivalent to a rejection of the bill in the form in which it was report- 
ed. The bill was never afterwards considered, but the Committee on Rev- 
olutionary Claims, in the examination of individual applications for com- 
mutation, have continued to act upon the rules of presumption contained 
in it; and on the propriety of those rules depends the fate of all the com- 
mutation claims now pending, as weU as the justness of the acts which 
have been heretofore passed. 

As this presumption against the resignation of an officer after the passage 
of the resolutions of October 21, 1780, is the hinge on which all these 
cases turn, it seems to deserve a more particular consideration, 
iV Doubtless, the provision of half pay, made by the resolution of October, 
1780, was an additional inducement to the officers to remain in service ; 
but there would necessarily be various influences operating from time to 
time in individual cases, that would present still stronger inducements in 
favor of resignation. Considerations peculiar to military life, such as 
questions in regard to rank and promotion, personal dissatisfaction with 
commanding officers, or strong dislike to a particular service, would be 
-likely to influence some ; while others would be drawn from the army by 



26 Rep. No. 436. 

changes in familjr arrangements, by flattering offers in business, or by ap- 
pointment to office, or favorable prospt-cts of promotion in civil life, la 
point of (act, many officers did resign after that period, as will hereafter be 
shown. 

Bnt this question of presumption onght not to be considered, as it has 
heretofore been, with sole reference to the 'motives which may be supposed 
to have operated either to prevent or produce resignations. A state of 
facts might perhaps exist, where the rule adopted by the committee of 1834 
might not be particularly objectionable. If the muster and pay rolls, and 
other records of tl)e army, which ought to show the history of the service 
of all the officers, were in a state of perfect preservation ; or if, while such 
papers were in existence, an official list of resignations and other casualties 
had been carefully made from them, and that list were now in the posses- 
sion of the Government, no great injury might arise from any rule of 
presumption. A reference to the rolls or list would put an end to the 
presumption, by ascertaining the fact. But we have already seen that the 
records of the services of the officers of the revolutionary army have long 
been destroyed ; and we learn from the report of the Secretary of VV^ir to 
the select committee of the last session, that no list of resignations was ever 
made from those papers. (See appendix No 10, A, B, C, and No 5, letters 
from the Third Auditor, Commissioner of Pensions, and Clerk of Bounty 
Land Office.) When, therefore, the report of 1834, which has been quoted 
above, says, " the resigitnt'ioyi of an officer ought to appear upoji some 
record,^- it should in candor have been added, that it could not so appear, 
because the records had been destroyed. 

But the impropriety of this rule of presumption will be placed in a still 
stronger light, by the important additional fact, that, although there never 
was any list made of the resignations of the officers of the army, there is an. 
official list purporting to be a list of all the officers of the army who either 
served to the end of the war, or retired as supernumeraries. A description 
of this list, called " the officer's book," will be found in the letters accom- 
panying the report of the Secretary of War, (Nos. 10 and 5, appendix,) par- 
ticularly the letter of the Third Auditor, whose knowledge of the list com- 
menced with his first employment in the department in 1793. 

The list now referred to purports to be a list of officers entitled to boun- 
ty lands from the United States, and contains, of course, a list of the names, 
not only of those who served to the end of the war, and of those who be- 
came supernum<!rary after the passage of the half-pay resolutions of Octo- 
ber, 1780, but also a list of those who became supernumerary in 1778 and 
1779. It seems probable to the committee that the list was made in con- 
formity with the provisions of "an ordinance for ascertaining the mode of 
disposing of the western lands," adopted May 20, 1785, which directs the 
Secretary of War to determine, " from the returns in his office, or such other 
sufficient evidence as the nature of the case may admit," who were the ob- 
jects of the land bounty. The list is in the handwriting of Mr. Howell, 
who in 1788 was appointed commissioner of army accounts, and who had 
been in the War Department as assistant to the Paymaster General from 
the close of t!ie war, and probably from an earlier period. This list, in 
the opinion of the committee, is entitled to all the credit which the Third 
Auditor, who has known it longest, is disposed to give it. 

This list, including, as before slated, all the officers who served to the 
end of the war. and all who became supernumerary from 1778, must neceS' 



Rep. No. 436. 27 

sarily comprehend all who were entitled to commutation. It seems to the 
commiuee, that if the name of an applicant for commutation is not found 
upon it as entitled, it should at this late day be taken as evidence l!iat the 
claim was unfounded; subject to be rebutted only by clear and authentic 
proof, that thouo;h the name of the applicant was omitted in the list, he did, 
nevertheless, become supernumerary, under the reductions of tbe army 
made in obedience to the resoiulions of October, 1780, or that he did serve 
to the end of the war. But, in the examination of modern commutauoii 
claims. little or no attention appears to have been paid to this list. The 
presumption which the imagination has raised against resignations, aided 
by parol testimony contained in ex parte affidavits recently taken, often 
weak and uncertain in its terrns, and always, from its nature, little to be de- 
pended on, has been sufiered to cast in the shade the authority of this an- 
cient document, and to decide the cases in favor of the claimants. 

The examination made by the select committee of the last session, and 
by the present committee, has brought to their notice other documentary 
evidence hitherto unknown or overlooked, which has a highly important 
bearing upon this class of claims, and tends strongly to confirm the view- 
here taken of the general correctness of the list contained in "the officer's 
book," and of the uncertain and dangerous character of the presumptions 
and parol evidence on which their predecessors on the committee have here- 
tofore relied. Of that part of the evidence which they deem of most nn- 
poriance, the committee will now proceed to give some account. 

The first document which the committee will mention is the original ar- 
rangement of the Virginia line made at White Plains, on the 11th of Sep- 
tember, 1778, by direction of a committee of Congress, and in conformity 
to resolutions of January 10, May 27, June 4, and' August G, 1778. This 
document is found among the papers purchased by this Government of the 
heirs of General Washington, deposited in the State l^partment. By this 
arrangement, the fifteen regiments of infantry were reduced to eleven. This 
arrangement gives the names of the officers who were retained in service^ 
the names of those who were prisoners of war, and of those who became 
supernumerary in consequence of the reduction. There is also amouir the 
Washington Papers a copy of the subsequent arrangement made at Middle- 
brook, in March, 1779, in compliance with resolutions of Congress of No- 
vember 24, 1778, and February 4, 1779 ; this arrangement being, with few 
slight variations, a confirmation and re-establishment of that of September 
previous. The complement of officers required for each regiment was 29, 
and of course for the whole line 319. The number of officers retained in ser- 
vice at Middlebrook was 281 ; the vacancies being 38 ensigns, and the super- 
numeraries, including those of September previous, 45. There is likewise 
among the Washington Papers a copy of a part of an arrangement of the 
officers of the Virginia line, made by a board of field oflicers, on the 2od ot 
September, 1779,'containing a rank-roll of the field officers and captains ; 
giving the names and dates of commissions of the 33 field officers, 66 cap- 
tains.and 11 captain-lieutenants. The copy refers to the original, as con- 
taining a regimental arrangement of all the oflicers as then established, and 
as also having annexed to it, by order of the board, copies of the whole ar- 
rangements made at White Plains, in September, 1778, and at Middlebrook^L 
in March, 1779. This original has not been found, having doubtless been 
transmitted to the board of war, and subsequently destroyed in one of the 
■conflagrations before mentioned. 



28 Rep. No. 436. 

But a document of still greater importance than the foregoing is a copy 
of the arrangement of the Virginia hne, made at Chesterfield, in February^ 
1781, in obedience to the resolntions of the 3d and 21st of October, 1780. 
This is found in the Pension Office, being a copy furnished in 1833, from 
the original among the public archives at Richmond. 

The caption of the proceedings is as follows, viz : 

"At a board of field officers begun at Chesterfield, February 10, 1781, by 
order of Major General Baron Steuben, for the purpose of arranging the 
Virginia line : Present, Colonels John Gibson, William Davis ; Lieutenant 
Colonels Oliver Towles, Richard Campbell, Thomas Gaskins, John Webb, 
Richard Taylor ; Majors John Hayes, Thomas Posey, John Willis, George 
Gilchrist, Smith Snead; there were also present, though not of the board, 
Colonel George Matthews, Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan Clarke, and Major 
William Croghan : the following rules for regulating the arrangement were 
agreed to." 

The rules, which are sixteen in number, covering several pages of closely 
written paper, will not be inserted in this place, excepting only the 4th and 
5th, which seem necessary to a full understanding of the arrangement. 

"Rule 4th. Agreeably to the terms of Major General Baron Steuben's 
proclamation, it is determined, that all officers that do not aUend at this 
place on or before the 18th instant, shall be adjudged superseded, or subject 
to a court of inqmrij^ (according to circumstances,) unless some probable 
reason shall be alleged in excuse for their absence. 

"Rule 5th. All officers who shall by this board be adjudged 52/;>er.<?e£Zerf 
shall entitle their successors to commissions to be dated from the ISth instant ; 
and such as shall be reported subject to a court of inquiry, shall be excluded 
from the line, and superseded, unless their application to some commanding 
general, or field officer, for such court of inquiry to be held upon themselves, 
shall be made on or before the first day of May next ; and in case such ap- 
plication shall not be made, or the decision of such court of inquiry shall 
be against such officer, such vacancies shall be considered as havino- hap- 
pened on the ISlh instant." ^ 

After the 16th rule, the arrangement proceeds thus: 

"Agreeably to the foregoing rules, the following officers became supernu- 
merary, either by choice or juniority : 

Colon tls, 
William Heath, juniority ; Abraham Buford, juniority. 

Lieutenant Colonels Commandant. 
William Darke, juniority; Levin Joines, juniority; Burgess Ball, juniority. 
Lieutenant Colonels. 

John Webb, juniority ; Richard Taylor, juniority ; Richard C. Ander- 
son, juniority. 

Majors. 

Thomas Ridley, choice ; John Hayes, choice ; Andrew Waggoner, jun,, 
conduional upon the rank of; John Gilchrist, choice ; Thomas Hill,' juni- 
ority; William Taylor, juniority; Willia.n Mosely, juniority; Peter B. 
Bruin, juniority. 



Rep. No. 436. 29 

Captain-lieutenants. 

William Eppes, choice ; John Crittenden, choice ; Arthur Lind, choice.'' 

The following officers, for whose non-compliance with the proclamation 
of the honorable Major General Baron Steuben no ^food reason has been 
alleged, are superseded, or subjected to a court of inquiry, according to their 
respective circumstances which appear to the board : 

Superseded. 

Captains Richard Stephens, 6th regiment. 

William Yause. 8ih regiment. 

.John Steed, 4th reffiment. 
Lieuts. David Williams, 8lh regiment. 

Edward Smith. 7th regiment. 
Ensign Thomas Holt, 1st regiment. 

Subject to a court of iijquiri/. 

Ensigns Philip Coartney, 1st regiment. 
William Scoit, 4th regiment. 
Spencer Morgan, 7th regiment. 
WiUiam Baylis, Sth regiment, supposed to have resigned." 

This arrangement then gives a rank-roll of the field officers, 8 of each 
grade, arranged and numbered according to seniority; next, a rank roll of 
captains, 72 in number : and, finally, a list of all the officers of each of the 
eight regiments retained in service, being a list of 24 field officers, 72 cap- 
tains, 104 lieutenants, and 44 ensigns — 268 officers in the whole. 

The committee have been tluis particular in describing the proceedings 
of this board of arrangement, because it is the arrangement under which 
most of the applicants for conmiutation of the present day claim to have 
become supernumerary ; and because the Commissioner of Pensions, ui 
whose office the arrangement is found, does not seem to take the same view 
of it which the committee do. The Commissioner of Pensions, in his letter 
appended to this report, (No. 10, C,) speaks of this arrangement as giving 
*'the names of some who were supernumerary," and says : " This list was 
made in 1781, as a part of the report of the board of officers, more for the 
nse of those who were retained in the service, than for the purpose of show- 
ing who had left the army under the resolutions of Congress." 

The committee are satisfied the Commissioner has wholly mistaken the 
character of this paper ; that it not only contains a list of se/ne who became 
supernumerary, but a list of all ; that it was not made as a pari: of the re- 
port of the board of officers, but as the whole of their report; and that it 
was made as well for the purpose of showing who had lelt the army under 
the resolutions of Congress, as for showing who were retained ; and that it 
does show the one as fully and as perfectly as it does the other. And for 
these opinions they assign the following reasons : 

1. The paper itself purports to be a full account of the proceedings of the 
board of arrangement under the resolutions of Congress ; it purports to give 
a full list of the officers who became supernumerary; it purports to give a 
full list of all who were superseded, or were subjected to a court of inquiry; 
it purports to give a full list of all the officers retained in service. There is 
liothing about the paper which indicates that it is but a part of the report 
of the board, or is imperfect in any particular. 



30 Rep. No. 436. 

2. The resolution of the 21st of October, 1780, which directed this ar- 
rang"eriient, required that the officers who should meet in their respective 
States for the purpose of determining who were to be retained, and who to 
become supernumerary, should " make return of those who were to remain, 
together tviih the navies of the officers reduced." This board of officers 
met for the purpose of performing the duty required by the resolution ; it 
was a board of intelligence and ability, and it is not to be presumed they 
performed it in part only. 

3. From the manner in which the Commissioner speaks of this list, as 
containing the names of some who became supernimierary, it is not im- 
probable his opinion that it did not contain the names of all the supernu- 
meraries was hastily taken up, under the apprehension that the number 
was smaller than it ought to have been. If we were to take the number of 
applications to Congress for commutation, which are claimed on the ground 
that the officers were reduced by this arrangement, then, indeed, the num- 
ber of supernumeraries ought not to be less than one or two hundred at the 
least ; but if we consider the precise amount of the reduction which was to 
be made, and look also at the history of the time, we shall very readily under- 
stand that the number of supernumeraries must have been very small. 
The Virginia line was by this board reduced from eleven to eight regi- 
ments. If the eleven regiments were full, they contained twenty six com- 
pany officers each, making two hundred and eiohty-six m the whole, be- 
sides field officers. — (Journals of Congress, May 27, 1778.) The eight new 
regiments (resolution 21 st October, 1780) were to have thirty-one company 
officers each, making two hundred and forty-eight officers in the whole, 
and showing a difference of thirty-eight officers ; which number of com- 
pany officers would be reduced, if all the regiments were full. But there is 
good reason to believe, from the account, we have of the army at that period, 
that the vacancies were numerous. From the letter of General Washing- 
ton to the President of Congress, of the 11th of October, 1780, which was 
made the fouiidation of the resolutions of the 21st of the same month, the 
committee make the following extracts : 

" That there are the most conclusive reasons for reducing the number of 
regiments, no person acquainted with the situation of our affairs, and the 
state of the army, will deny. A want of officers, independently of other con- 
siderations, is sitfjicieiit to com,pel tis.'^ 

And in the same letter, after speaking of the very great number of resig- 
nations which had then recently taken place, and the difficulty of keeping 
the army togetlier without some further provision for the officers, he says : 

" After having exiiibited this view of the present stale of the army, it is 
almost needless to add, that, excepting in the rank of field officers, and a 
very few captains, we shall have new officers to provide, rather than old 
ones to disband, at the reduction of regiments ; and how they are to be had 
I know not, no disposition having been discovered of late to enter the ser- 
vice. Congress have little to apprehend on account of the expense of 
supernumerary officers, when that event takes place." — (See note to 4 Jour. 
old Congress, page 212.) 

General Washington, in this latter extract, spoke in reference to the re- 
duction proposed in the resolutions of October 3, which had been trans- 
mitted him for his opinion, and on which his letter is a commentary. Those 
resolutions left the same number of company officers, to wit, six captains 
and eighteen subalterns to each regiment, as they had before contained. 



Rep. No. 436. 3i 

Under that arrangement General Washington says there would, besides 
lield officers, only be a few supernumerary captains. By the resolutions of 
October 21, the number of captains was increased from six to nine, and the 
number of subalterns from eighteen to twenty-two ; making an addition of 
seven officers to each regiment; under which arrangement there could, of 
course,'be no supernumerary captains. For in the old eleven regiments 
there v/ould be but sixty-six ; whereas the eight new regiments, having each 
nine captains, would number seventy-two : being an addition of six captains 
in the whole. It is accordingly found, from the arrangement, that, after 
the reduction of the Virginia line, there were still twenty eight ensigncies 
remaining vacant in the eight new regiments, for the want of officers to fill 
them. But this question of the number of supernumerary officers is put at 
rest by the arrangement itself, which declares that there were not more 
subalterns than would be sufficient for the eight new regiments. The 
fourteenth rule adopted for the regulation of the arrangement is as follows, 
viz : 

" As (here are not -more snhaUcrns thav. may he sii[]lcieiil for the li/iey 
it is agreed that such captain-lieutenanls as ctioose to continue in service 
shall be admitted as the eldest lieutenants, and shall rise accordingly, as di- 
rected in the twelfth and thirteenth articles."' 

The supernumeraries are seen to correspond in grade and number to 
what had been anticipated by General Washington, and to ihe resolution of 
the board. They were sixteen held officers and three captain-lieutenants ; 
nineteen in the whole — the three captain-lieutenants preforring to retire, 
rather than sink their rank to that of eldest lieutenants. 

The committee conclude, then, that this document does contain a full 
and perfect list of the retiring officers of the Virginia line, under the reso- 
lutions granting half pay for life, of October 21, 17S0; and that, of conse- 
quence, a very slight foundation remains for the hundred rec('nt commutation 
applicatfons, wherein the officers are alleged to have become supernumerary 
under this arrangement. 

It may not be improper to add, that a copy of that part of the Chesterfield 
arrangement which relates to the officers retained in service, but omitting 
the proceedings of the board, and the names of supernumerary and super- 
seded officers, is also found among the Washington Papers in the State j^e- 
partment, (Army Returns, vol. 101.) It corresponds, so far as it goes, with 
the copy from Richmond, and thus confirms the authenticity of that docu- 
ment. 

Another document, of some importance in tlie investigation of commu- 
tation claims, is also a copy from Richmond of the list of officers retained 
in service at the arrangement of tb.e Virginia line, made at Cumberland old 
court- house in May, 1782, in obedience to the resolution of Congress of 
the 23d of April, 1782, by which the number of lieutenants in each regi- 
ment (besides those of the line serving in the staff) was reduced to ten; 
attached to which list, is a list, also made at Cumberland old court-house, 
but under date of the 2d of September, 17S2, of officers who had been 
'' killed, invalided, resigned, and superseded," since the arrangement at 
Chesterfield. It should also be mentioned, that, on the margin of the list of 
officers at the arrangement at Chesterfield, and at Cumberland old court- 
house, under the head of " remarks," there are against the names of many 
of the officers, entries of " resigned,'' '-superseded," dec. ; which entries were 
doubtless made, not by the board of arrangement, but by the officer who 
afterwards had charge of the documents, or perhaps by the subsequent board 



'S'l Rep. No. 436. 

at Winchester. (For the list of September 2, 1782, above mentioned, see 
appendix, No. 11.) 

Another document of importance in the investigation of commutation 
claims is the report of the board of arrangements of the Virginia hue, which 
met at Winchester on the 27th of December, 1782, made in compliance 
with the resolutions of Congress of August 7 and November 19, 1782, and to 
take effect on the 1st January, 1783, by which the line, including infantry 
and artillery, was reduced to less than two regiments. The original report, 
in the handwriting of Colonel Wood, the president, is found among the 
Washington Papers, (107 Army Returns,) and there is a copy from Rich- 
mond in the Pension Office. 

There can be no doubt chat this is a full and perfect report of the whole 
proceedmgs ; and it contains lists, made in conformity with the require- 
ments of the resolutions which directed it, of the several classes of officers 
who were retained, as well as those who were reduced. The number of 
officers retnuied in service was fifty one ; and the number reduced one hun- 
dred and seventy-nine, including those who were prisoners of war. 

Of this arrangement, and of the previous arrangement at Chesterfield, 
Mr. Howell, commissioner ot army accounts, in a letter to Thomas Wjsh- 
art, (who was applying for commutation,) under date of January 9, 1793, 
holds the Ibllowing language: 

'= On the arrangement of the Yirijinia line in 1781, under the acts of 
Congress of the 3d and 21st of October, 1780, you have not been mention- 
ed ; and on the arrangement of the same line in 1782, when all the officers 
of that line who were considered in continental service were called on to 
state their claims and rank to a board of officers appointed by the com- 
manding officer to decide on them, it does not appear that any application 
^n your part was made to the board. Neither does it appear that the board 
considered you as an officer of the line ; for. if they had, you would cer- 
tainly have been mentioned on their minutes, as one considered in service, 
Q-etirins^ from, it with the emoluments, or superseded for nQfi-compliance 
with the general ordcrsP (See resolutions, &.C., on revolutionary claims, 
compiled by order of the House in 1838, page 145.) 

The proceedings of this board appear to have been conducted with great 
deliberation and order. The board met on the 27th of December, and ad- 
journed from time to time until the Gth of January ; during which time many 
questions in reference to the rank and standing of different officers were 
heard and decided, of which a full account is given in their report. Among 
these, were the applications of two officers. Captain Ransdell and Lieu- 
tenant Ashby, who had been superseded at the arrangement at Cumber- 
land court-house, in May previous; who now appearing before the board, 
and showing that they were at home on furlough, and unable to attend at 
that place by reason of sickness, they were unanimously restored to their 
ranks. Their names appear on the list of resigned and superseded officers 
of September 2, 1782. 

There can be no doubt but that this arrangement, as well as that at 
Chesterfield, was intended to include, and to show the position, whether 
in service or as supernumerary, of all the officers of the Virginia line who 
were entitled to the benefits of the half pay resolutions of October, 1780 ; 
and the committee think there can be as little doubt that these arrangements 
do show such position with as much accuracy as the nature of the duty 
which the board? were required to perform would permit ; and that the in- 



Hep. No. 436. 33 

stances must be very rnre of the omission of tiiename of an officer who was 
justly entitled to such provision. 

But, besides these arrangements of the army, which have hitherto re- 
mained either unnoticed or unknown, tikjre is other authentic documenta- 
ry evidence having an important bearing upon the services of the officers 
of tlie Virginia line, which, thongli sometimes referred to m the examina- 
tion of commutation claims, has not, in the opinion of the committee, been 
ahvays received with that attention and respect w^hich it des(;rves. 

The most important portion ofthis evidence grows out of the proceedings 
of the authorities of Virginia, under an act of the General xissembly of that 
State, passed m November, 1781, alUided to in a former part of this report. 
That act provided, among other things, for making good the depreciation 
pay of the officers of the continental line of that State, and for paying the 
accounts of such officers from the 1st day of .Tanuary, 1777, to the 1st 
day of January, 1782 — tfie term of five years. The accounts of the offi- 
cers were to be adjusted by the andiiors of the State, and the depreciation pay 
could not be obtained in any other manner than dirou2:h such adjnstment. 
As that pay amounted to more than fonr-fifths of the sum of the original pay,it 
is not to be presumed that any officer, who performed any considerable service 
during the five years covered Ijy the act, omitted, to claim and receive it. 
After the end of the year 1781, the accounts of the officers were adjusted in 
conformity with the provisions of the act, and a list of the settlements, to- 
gether with tlie several accounts adjusted, are still preserved in the audit- 
or's office at Richmond. (See appendix No. 7.) The list and accounts fnr- 
nish very strong, if not conclusive, evidence of the services of the officers 
dnring that period. If an officer's name is not found on tiie list, he must be 
presumed not to have served dnring that period. If his name is found, his 
account on file will show the term of his service, '^rhus. if it appears by 
an officer's account that -he received his depreciation pay from the 1st of 
.lanuary, 1777, to the 31st of December, 17S1, he must be presumed to 
have served that period, and, perhaps, to have continued in service after- 
wards. But if in 1783 he settles his account, and receives pay only up to 
Augnst, 17S0, then he is to be taken to have quitted the service at that time ; 
for it cannot l)e supposed he wonld have omitted to claim his pay to a later 
period, had it been due liim. Certificates, giving all necessary informc\tion 
in reference to the service of any officer, as shown by these settlements, 
have been promptly furnished by the auditor of Virginia, whenever required 
by any member of the committee. 

It should be remarked, that the depreciation pay of the continental troops 
was made good by Virginia, on the recommendation of Congress, on ac- 
count of the United Stales ; and that the payments were not confined to of- 
ficers wiio were strictly and literally officers of the continental line, but in- 
ckided others, who, as being in continental service and pay, were deemed 
to belong to the continental establishment, so far as to make the United 
States responsible for the payments made them. Thus, payments were 
made to sundry staff officers ; also, to officers of the " convention guards ;" 
and perhaps to others, though they had no rank or command in the line, 
and were never deemed entitled to commutation. 

Another portion of documentary evidence is derived from the settlements 

made by the authority of Congress, after the close of the war, with the officers 

of the army, and on which final-settlement certificates were issued, as has 

been hereinbefore stated. A list of all the final-settlement certificates issued, 

3 



34 Rep. No. 436. 

and; so far as relates to the Virginia line, either the original accounts which 
were settled, or copies of them, are still preserved in the office of the Third 
Auditor, from wliich the particular services rendered and paid for may be as- 
certained. These certificates include' the amount of the five years' full pay 
of those officers who settled their accounts, whenever they were entitled to it. 

The committee will mention but one other piece of documentary evi- 
dence, from which light may be thrown on the chiims of revolutionary offi- 
cer^; which is, a list found in the office of the Third Auditor, of the officers 
of the Virginia line entitled to three months' specie pay in 17S2, and four 
months' specie pay in 1783. This list, on which the resolutions of Con- 
gress of the 10th of October, 1786, were founded, appears to have been 
made by the Paymaster General, and comprehends all officers who were 
deemed to have been in service for either three months during the year 
1782, or four months in 1783, including the retiring officers" under the 
CuiMberland and Wmchester arrangements, as well as those in actual com- 
mand. It is an official document, not only recognised by Congress, but 
also by the General Assembly of the State of Virginia, who, on the Gth of 
January, 1787, resolved "to pay the officers of the Virginia line on con- 
tinental establishment, affreeabli/ to the return mnde to Congress by the 
Paymaster GeneraL the amount of three months' pay due tor the year 
1782, afid four months' pay due for the year 1783," in conformity with the 
recommendation of Congress in the resolution of the lOlh of October, 178(3, 
before mentioned. 

The several arrangements of the army before described, and all the other 
documents which have since Tdccu noticed, will be found to harmonize with 
and strengthen each other. Together, they furnish a njass of autlientic 
evidence, which, when carefully examined and applied to individual cases, 
will tend to increase our distrust in the rules of evidence heretofore adopted, 
and our confidence in the general accuracy of the recently discarded "offi- 
cer's hook." 

Of the sixty-two modern acts granting commutation pay, before mention- 
ed, twenty-nine of them were for services alleged to have been performed 
by officers in the Virginia line. The names of these twenty-nine persons 
Avho thus, as officers, have been allowed commutation, in the chronological 
order in wdiich the acts granting it have been passed, are as follows, viz : 
Philip Slaughter, .Tames Barnett, Robert H. Harrison, William Price, Thom- 
as Blackwell, William Vawters, John Roberts, George Baylor, William Car- 
ter, Edmund Brooke, John Thornton, Thomas Triplett, John Thomas, 
Peter Foster, Thomas Minor, James Craine, John Taylor, Everard Meade, 
William Royal, William Teas, John Emerson, BuUer Claiborne, Thomas 
Wallace, Robert Jouett, Thornton Taylor, John Spitfathom, Daniel Duval, 
Charles Snead, Timothy Feely. The amount paid from the Treasury 
for the commutation pay of these persons is ^141,875 04. (Appendix 
No. 8.) 

With the view of determining whether the rules of evidence which have 
been heretofore applied to this class of claims may he safely and properly 
continued in the investigation and decision of others, the committee will 
proct5ed, as briefly as may be practicable, to call the attention of the House 
to the facts as they now appear in each of these cases. If it shall be found 
(as the committee think it will be) that few or none of these claims are shown 
to be well founded by satisfactory evidence, and that a great majority of 
them are clearly and decidedly bad, the House will doubtless concur with 



Rep. No. 436. 35 

the committee in the opinion that new principles should be adopted in fu- 
ture adjudications. 

But, before proceedino; to this examination, it seems necessary to premise 
sundry general remarks, which have an application to these individual 
claims, and which should be borne in mind while considerino' them. . And 

Firfit. The claim to commutation, as has been heretofore "shown, is not,' 
nice the claim to a pension, founded in gratitude for meritorious services' 
and due only to the person performing them ; but is a pecuniary obligation 
arising out of a contract between the old Government and the officers of the 
army, which, if due, is a debt which a court of law having jurisdiction 
would enforce, and which, like other debts, is a part of the estate of an 
officer, and descends to his heirs ; that, in order to entitle an individual to 
commutation, it must appear that he was an officer in the continental line 
of the revoliuionary army ; and that, as such, he either served to the end of 
the war, or left the service as a supernumerary, after the passacje of the reso- 
hition of the 21st of October, 17S0. 

^Secnnrlly. It should be remembered that active hostilities with the enemy 
ceased m Virginia with the capture of Cornwallis, in October, 17SI ; and 
that, in the common language of that State, the war is said to have then ter- 
minated. When, therefore, a witness testifies that any particular person 
served in the army to the end of the war, supposing the witness to be honest 
and his recollection accurate, the person should be taken to have been in 
service until the autumn of 1781. 

Thirdly. It should nevertheless be remembered, that the war did continue 
until the 3d of September, 1783, when the definitive treaty of peace was 
signed at Paris ; and that the continental army was not disbanded until the 
3d of November, 1783. The former date (September 3, 1783) is the peri- 
od to which pensions are allowed uiider the act of June 7, 1832; and the 
latter (November 3, 17S3) the period to which land allowances are comput- 
ed by the authorities of Virginia. 

The committee will now proceed to the examination of the individual 
cases before enumerated ; and, first, the case of 

Philip Slaughter. 

On the 23d of December, 1782, Captain Philip Slau ghter received from 
the State of Virginia a land warrant for three years' service in the conti- 
nental hue ; and on its being granted, there appears to have been entered in 
the register's office of that State, against his name, "resigned in February, 
VtSXP On the 26th of May, 1828, an act was passed, granting him com- 
mutation pay, with a proviso that the acceptance of commutation should 
deprive him of the benefit of the act of 15th iMay, 1828. On the 29th May, 
1830, the proviso in the former act was repealed; and on the 1st June, 
1830, he was admitted to the benefit of the act of May 1.5, 1828. On the 
8th of July, 1830, Captain Slaughter obtained bounty land from the United 
States, 3U0 acres ; and on the I9th of August, 1830, an additional allowance 
of 1,000 acres from the State of Virginia, for a service of 18 months over six 
years; and March 2, 1833, an act passed, allowing him interest on his com- 
mutation pay. The amount of his modem allowances is as follows : 

Commntation under actof May 25, 1S28 - - - $2 400 00 

Interest by pct of March 2, 1833 - - - 6,557 20 

300 acres land scrip, for United States bounty, at $1 25 - 375 00 



36 ^ Rep. No. 436. 

1,000 acres land scrip, for Virginia bounty - - .$1,250 00 

He has received under act of May 15, 182S, to March 3, 1840, 

$4S0 per annum ; from March 3, 1826, 14 years - 6,720 00 

Amount of payments from the Treasury - - - 17,30 2 20 

It appears from the report of the committee on his case, that soon afier the 
campaio-n of 1779, Captain Slaughter, who had been an officer in active 
service, " returned to his home in Virginia on furlougli,got ujarried, remain- 
ed at his residency in Virginia, and did not afterwards join the army." There 
is no pretence that Captain Slaughter performed any service after 1779. It 
appears further, that in tlie fall of 1779, liearing he might be again called 
into active service, the Virginia line having been ordered to the south, he 
placed his commission in the hands of a friend, to be resigned in case he 
was ordered out ; but the call on the officers (he being a junior officer) pass- 
ed him unnoticed, and he held on to his commission. The committee were 
of opinion that " Captain Slaughter did virtnall!/ conhnue in service to the 
end of the war," and reported the bill. By a certificate obtained from the 
auditor of Virginia, it appears that on the 1st day of April, 1783, Captain 
Slaughter made a settlement with the accounting oflicers of tliat State, of his 
depreciation and full pay as a captain, from tl;e 1st of January, 1777, to 
the \bth of February, 1781 ; at which time he doubtless resigned, as stated 
in the entry made on his obtaining his first bounty-hind warrant. His name 
appears as a captain of the 7lh regiment, on the three arrangements of Sep- 
tember, 1778, March, 1779, and September, 1779 ; but is not to be found on 
that of February, 1781, oreitherof the subsequent arrangements. The order 
of tlie board of arrangements at Chesterfield, in February, 1781, made in 
conformity with the proclamation ofB;ir()n Steuben, lor superseding all offi- 
cers who did not appear by the 18th of February, rendered it impracticable 
for Captain Slaughter to remain longer " virtiuilly in service,^' and he ac- 
cordingly gave up his commission. The facts of the entry of his resigna- 
tion on obt'iiining his land warrants ; of his being paid only up to February, 
1781 ; and of the absence of his name from the subsequent arrangements, 
were unknown to the committee who reported the bill. Captain Slaughter, 
having served more than three years, was entitled to the land warrant which 
he obtained from Virginia in 1782 ; but having resigned in February, 1781, 
all his subsequent allowances, both of land and money, are unfounded. 

'Lieutenant James Baruett. 

An act passed granting James Barnelt the commutation pay of a lieuten- 
ant. May 28, 1830; and on the 3d of March, J 833, another act, aliowmg 
interest on his commutation pay, was passed. He was paid from the 
Treasury f 4,830 30. He became a supernumerary at the arrangement at 
White Plains in September, 1778, as appears by that arrangement, and by 
the confirmation of it at Middlebrook, in March succeeding. His name is 
not found on any of the subsequent arrangements. He is also returned on 
the "officer's book," in the Bounty Land Office, as having become a super- 
numerary lieutenant on the 30lh of September, 1778; and it now appears, 
from a certificate of James E. Heath, obtained by the seltct committee of 
the last session, that Lieutenant James Barnett was settled with, by Vir- 
:ginia, oil tlie 28th of May, 17S3, and received his pay as lieutenant to the 



Bep. No. 436. 37 

30th of September, 177S, and no longer. This seems conclusive that his 
service ended at tfie period stated on the officer's book, and of course he 
had no claim whatever to commutation. 

It appears, from a return attached to the arrangement of 1778, that James 
Barnett was appointed ensign on the 4th of March, 1776. Having served 
only to tlie 30th September, 1778, about two years and seven months, lie 
was not entitled to land from Virginia. It does not appear that he applied 
for it until April, 181)9, when a warrant lor 3,444 acres, for a service of 
seven years, was grauted him. This allowance of land for seven years' 
service, on parol evidence, when it appears of record that his service was 
less than three years, and that therefore he was not entitled to an)'' land, is 
believed to be a fair sample of a great portion of the modern allowances of 
that bounty. 

Robert H. Harrison^ a staff officer. 

On the 29th of March. 1830, an act passed granting commutation pay to 
the heirs of Lieutenant Colonel Robert H. Harrison; and on the 14th of 
July, 1832, another act authorized interest to be paid on the claim: the 
whole amounting to .$10,854 .58. Robert H. Harrison entered the army as 
aid-de-carap to General Washington, but soon became his private secretary; 
and while actmg in that capacity, on the 5th of June, 1776, Congress 
passed the following resolution : 

" Resolved, That the; aids-de camp of the commander-in-chief rank as 
lieutenant colonels ; that the aidsde camp of major generals rank as ma- 
jors : that Robert H. Harrison, Esq., have the rank of lieutenant colonel in 
the continental army." 

He continued in the family of General Washington, as his secretary, 
until the winter or spring of 1781, when he left the service, and never 
afterwards joined the army. The conmiittee who made the report on 
which the bill was founded, thus speak of his services: "He held his 
commission, and continued in that rank, till the close of the war. From 
October, 1775, when he entered the service as aid decamp, he continued 
in the service, actively and arduously employed, either iti the immediate 
duties of his station, or as principal secretary to General Washington, until 
1781, when, being reduced by the laborious diUies of his service, he was 
compelled to leave the army on furlough. He was not, after this time, able to 
join it again, by reason of his enfeebled health, but held himself ready to 
do so whenever his state of health would permit." 

Waiving, for the present, any question as to the manner in which Colonel 
Harrison left the service, this committee, supposing him to have continued 
in it to the end of the war, do not conceive it to have been a service which 
would have entitled liim to commutation. He evidently belonged to the 
general's staff, and not to the line of the army. Officers of the staff, as such, 
were never promised either half pay or commutation. The resolutions of 
the 3d and 2 1st of October, 1780, which for purposes of construction should 
be read together, speak only of regimental officers of the line, and do not 
include in tlie half-pay provision any other class. In their terms, they even, 
excluded geuercd oiticers of the line, as appears by the explanatory resolu- 
tion of November 28, 1780. They also excluded the corps of engineers, 
and that of the sappers and miners, who, by resolve of the 14th November, 
1780, are " put on an equal establishment with the officers of the line." Th& 



38 Rep. No. 436. 

provision subsequently made by resolution of January 17, 1781, for the offi- 
cers in the hospital department and medical staff, shows clearly that neither 
staff officers in general, nor even officers of the regimental staff, were con- 
sidered as included in the previous resolutions ; for, among the officers pro- 
vided for by the latter resolve, were regimental surgeons. This early con- 
struction of the half-pay resolutions, and ol the commutation resolutions ot 
March 22,1783, which speak only ofofieers of the Hue and of those in the hos- 
pital department, was never deviated from. Staff officers, as such, were uni- 
formly excluded from commutation ; they were also excluded from the allow- 
ance of land bounty under ihe resolutions of September 16, 1776. The case of 
William Finnic, who was appointed deputy quartermaster general, vnththe 
ra?ik of colonel, \s simWar in principle to that of Colonel Harrison. After 
the close of the war, he applied for the emoluments of a colonel, by virtue 
of his commission giving him that rank. Cnt his claim was rejected, both 
by the old Congress and the new Government, as contrary to established 
regulations; and in reference to his claim to bounty land. Colonel Hamil- 
ton, in his report, as Secretary of the Treasury, of April 10, 1790, says, '-it 
does not appear to be warranted, either by the resolutions of Congress re- 
specting bounties of lands to officers and soldiers, or by the practice upon 
those resolutions ; nor does any circumstance occur to justify the allowance 
to the memorialist, without extending it to a number of other persons in like 
situation." (See resolution of Congress, February 2, 1786; and State Papers, 
volume on Claims, pa^e 16.) For this distinction between officers of the line 
and those of the stafi', there is good reason. The duties of the former re- 
quired a much greater sacrifice of personal comfort, and exposure to per- 
sonal danger, than the latter. Places in the staff were iiighly desirable ; 
whereas there was great difficulty, as abundantly appears from the letters of 
General Washington, in supplying those of the line with suitable incum- 
bents. Colonel Harrison, being a stafi" officer, could not, in the opinion of 
this committee, under any circumstances of his service, be entitled to com- 
mutation. 

But the facts in relation to the manner in which Colonel Harrison left 
the service, on which the committee acted who reported the bill, and which 
were proven only by parol, were wholly unfounded. Instead of Colonel 
Harrison's leaving the family of General Washington in consequence of ill 
health contracted by laborious service, and leaving it on furlough, holding 
himself ready to return whenever his health would permit, he left it by 
voluntary resignation, for a more honorable and profitable civil station in 
the State of Maryland, of which he was a citizen. The following is an 
extract of a letter from Robert H. Harrison to General Washington, dated 
" Nanjemoy, February 26, 1781," the original of which is found among 
the Washington Papers. (Letters to Washington, vol. 47 :) 

" I have been kept here in an irksome situation, with respect to the busi- 
ness which obliged me to leave camp, both from the nature of it, and frotii 
the death of Mrs. Harrison before she received her part, and her dying in- 
testate, as I took the liberty to mention to your excellency. Those circum- 
stances, together with the untoward unaccommodating disposition of too 
many of her representatives, have continued things to the present moment 
in nearly the disagreeable state they were the day she died ; and, with 
others, would have compelled me to have left the place 1 have had the honor 
to hold the ensuing fall. But I am now to communicate to your excel- 
lency, and i have taken the earliest occasion to do it, that I have been ad- 



Rep. No. 436. 39 

vised there is a matter under public consideration, so honorable and so in- 
teresting to my future prospects in life, that I cannot remain longer in the 
army. The matter allnded to conld not take place while 1 held any mil- 
itary rank or station. I shall decline any further communication on the 
subject until 1 have the pleasure of seeing you, which I expect will be in 
thecourse of a iew days, when I flatter myself I shall have your approba- 
tion ; to doubt with respect to it, would be to offer violence to your excel- 
lency's friendship. My pay will, in adjustins: and settling my accounts 
with the public, be only made up to the time I left camp ; as, without ser- 
vice, I wish for no compensation." 

From a letter of General Washington to Jonathan Trumbull, offermg 
him the situation of secretary in the place of Colonel Harrison, resigned, 
under date of April 16, 17S1, (Sparkes's Correspondence,) the followmg ex- 
tract is made : " Colonel Harrison, who has acted as my secretary since the 
beginning of the year 1776, has accepted an honorable and profitable ap- 
pointmeiU in the State of Maryland, and is gone to enjoy it." 

What that honorable and profitable appoiiitment was, may be ascertained 
irom the introduction to the 1st volume of Harris & McHenry's Maryland 
Reports, from which it appears that Robert H. Harrison was appointed chief 
justice of the general court of Maryland on the 10th of March, 17SI, and 
that he held such office until the time of his death, in the early part of the 
year 1790. 

It is but an act of justice to the memory of Judge Harrison, who was a 
man of high character and talent, and who knew well his rights under the 
resolutions^ of Congress, to say, that he never in his lifetime applied either 
for land or commutation. But it appears that his children have not been 
remiss in making their claims since his doath. In February, 1814, a spe- 
cial act passed the General Assembly of Virginia, under which the children 
of Colonel Harrison (Sarah Easton and Dorothy Storer) received for his 
depreciation pav from January 1. 1777, to the 25th of March, 1781, the 
sum of S8,973 10, which sum was included in and paid by the United 
States to Virginia in the appropriation contained in the first section of the 
act of July 5, 1832, for liquidating and paying certain claims of that State. 
(See Reports 1st session of 22d Congress, No. 191, page 62.) On the 3d of 
February, 1817, a land warrant was granted them for 6,000 acres for his 
service to the end of the war ; and on the 21st of May, 1838, 2,008 acres 
more were granted for a service of over two years more than six. On what 
evidence o/ principle these allowances by Virginia have been made, has not 
appeared to the committee ; though it seems that, as is usual, they have all 
been made at the expense of the United States. 

William Price. 

May 29, 1830, the commutation pay of a lieutenant was granted to Wil- 
liam Price ; and by act of the 2d March, 1833, interest on the same was al- 
lowed his heirs, he havino- in the mean time died— the whole amounting to 
^4,830 30. The whole of the testimony in this case was by parol. Not a 
scrap of documentary evidence of any description was produced. The ap- 
plicant stated that he first served as a sergeant in the 1st Virginia regi- 
ment, and was appointed a lieutenant in the spring of 1779; that he 
.served to the close of the war, and was discharged at the Point of Forks in 
1783. The testimony of several witnesses tended to confirm his state- 



40 Rep. No. 436. 

ment. Price also stated that his commission was stolen from him while in 
the service ; but there was no testimony on that point. This committee can 
hardly conceive of parol testimony sufliciently strong to overthrow the necr. 
ative evidence against the claim, ixvMng from the absence of his name from 
all the lists of officers yet in existence and hereinbefore described. Price 
states m his petition that he recruited for Colonel Parker's reo-iment at 
Kicnmond, and that appears to have been the place of his subsequent resi- 
clence He received no depreciation pay as an officer from Virginia, though, 
from his alleged service as lieutenant from the sprin<^ of 1779 the denre 
ciation due him could not have been less than seven hundred dollars He 
received no final-settlement certificate from Mr. Dnnscomb, who settled tiie 
accounts of the officers, and issue.l certificates for their pay and commuta. 
tion 1 hat an officer to whom such large sums were due should have re- 
sided m the town vyhere payments were made, and where the sums mic^ht 
have been reauily obtained, for several years in succession, without churn- 
ing them, seems absolutely incredible. And little less stranae, upon th^ 
supposition of a service from the spring of 1779 till the autumn of 17S3"; 
are the additional facts, that his name sliould have been omitted in all the 
rolls of the regiment to which he belonged, made at the several arranae- 
ments m February, 17SL May, 17b2, and .lannary ], 1783; and, also, that 
his name should not have been discovered by the Paymaster General in 
making out his list of officers entitled to specie pav in 17S2and 1783, or by 
the commissioner of army accounts in preparing'the list of officers entitled 

bounty land nor found in the " oiilcer's book." The claim to commuta- 
tion could not have been well founded, and ought not to have been allowed. 

1 Jie paro testimony in this case being unusually strouir, it occurred to the 
commu:ce that Price might possibly have been in service in some capacity 
during the- period stated by the witnesses, and that thev might merely have 
mistaken his rank. On looking at the list of non-commissioned officers 
and soldiers who received depreciation pav from Virginia for services iti 
rne continental line; the name of Sero:pant William Price is found, as hav- 
ing recmycd £29 ll)^. 6r/. on the 24th April, 1783. The name of VVillimn 
rrice is also tound as a conductor of military stores, on a revolutionary Ic^er 
in the office of the Third Auditor, tb.ough, from the circumstance of The 
joninal to which the account refers Ixring lost, i? is impo?,sihle to ascertain 
tiie period or extent of his service. If in the spring of }779, when Price 
states Ins term of service as seroeant to have expired, we suppose him to- 
nave been appointed conductor of military stores, instead of lieutenant, we 
snaa at once be furnished with a key to unlock the mystery #)f the absence 
ot Ills name as an officer from all the revolutionary records. As conditctor 
ot military stores, he lield no rank whatever in the army, and was not enti- 
tled to either depreciation pay, bountv land, or commutation. 

1 he land allowance to William Price, as rai^ht be e.ipected, is of modern 
date. On the VSth of July, 1809, he was allowed a b(i«nty of 2,666 acres 
lor a service as lieutenant for three vears. By October -Je was cMe to prove 
a service of seven years and eight months, and received an addisonal grant 
ot /40 acres; and on the 12th of June, 1S28, it was discovered he had serv- 
ed nine years and four months, and a third warrant issued to him of 739-' 
acres more ; making 4,145 acres in the whole— ta not one acre of which was 
lie entitled. If we suppose Price to have been discharged^ at the disbanding. 
of the army, on the 3d of November, 1783, he must, fror^iiihe forsgoincr al- 



Rep. No. 436. 41 

-owance, have commenced his military career on the 3d of July, 1774, 
.nearly ten months before the buttle of Lexingtoii. 

Captain Thomas Blackv:tU. 

On the 29th of May, 1S30, an act passed ofranting five years' full pny to 
•Captain Thomas Blackweil. Amount paid him $2,400. 

He becjmie a supernumerary at the arrangement at White Plains, in Sep- 
tember, 1778, as appears by that arrangement, atid also by th.e arrangen.ient 
at Middlebrook, in March Ibllowing. His name is not found on any of the 
subsequent arrangements. His name is also ou the "officer's book" in the 
Bounty Liand Office, as a supernumerary of September, 1778 ; and it appears 
by a cerlificate of tlie auditor of Virginia, obtained by the select committee 
of the last session, that Captain Blackweil was settled with by Virginia on 
the Kith of May, 17S3, and received his pay as captain to the 1st of Novem- 
ber, 177S. By resolve of jNovember 21, 1778, supernumerary officers of the 
arrangements of September, 1778, and March succet ding, were entitled to 
one year's extra pay of their comn;iissions, whicli Captain Blackweil, on the 
26th of February, 1793, claimed and received. This is entirely conclusive 
that liis service ended at the tune before stated, and that he could have no 
claim whatever to commutation. 

If Captain Blackweil entered the service as early as November 1. 1775, 
(which may not be deemed very improbable,) he would be entitled to land 
from Virgim'a for three years' service. He was allowed 4,000 acres of land, 
for a service of three years, on tiie 30th of September, 1783 ; and, on the 6th 
of August, 1806, it being discovered that he had served eight years, instead 
of three, he received an additional allowance of 1.333-y- acrco, making 5,333A- 
acres in the whole. 

Lienleiiaiit ^Vi/liam Vau-tcrs, of Colonel Gihson^s State regiment. 

The heirs of William Vawters, by act of May 25, 1832, were allowed the 
amount of five years' full pay of a lieutenant, with interest, amounting to 
§>4,82l 45. 

The report on whicli this act was founded (No. 44, 1st session 22d Con- 
gress.) stales that Vawters belonged to Colonel George Gibsoti's regiment, 
which it alleges to have been transferred from the State line to the conti- 
nental line, and to have thereby become a continental regiment. On the 
ground of its belonging to the continental line, Vawters was allowed the 
commutation pay. 

After the passage of the act of July 5, 1832, granting half pay for life to 
the officers of the Virginia State line, the heirs of Vawters, finding that the 
half pay for life under tfiat act would amount to a greater sum than they 
had received for commutation, applied for the half pay, (deducting the sum 
already received,) alleging that the commutation act had been passed under 
a mistake — that Gibson's, regiment was a State, and not a continental regi- 
ment. The claim for half pay being unfavorably received by the Secretary 
of the Treasury, the heirs of Vawters came again to Congress ; and, on the 
-22d of December, 1837, the committee made a favorable report on the claim 
for the excess of the half pay over the commutation, in which they came to 
the conclusion, "thnt when the act of 25th May passed, allowing commuta- 
tion to Vawters's heirs, i/wi/ had no claim whatever against the United 






42 Rep. No. 436. 

States, either for commutation or half pay, but had a claim against the State 
of Virginia for half pay during the life of their father, which claim was af- 
terwards assumed by the United States, by the act of the 5th of July, 
1832 ;" Colonel Gibson's regiment being a State, and not a continental 
regiment. In the opinion that Gibson's was a State, and not a continental 
regiment, and, of consequence, that the heirs of Vawters had no claim to 
commutation, the presetit committee concur. At the October session of the 
VirginiaAssembly, 1777) Colonel George Gibson's State regiment, and another 
State regiment then forcing, and afterwards commanded by Colonel Dab- 
ney, were transferred tefnporariJp into continental service — the former in 
the place of the 9th Virginia regiment, made prisoners at Germantown ; and 
the latter, in consequence of the deficiency of the State's quota in tiie conti- 
nental army. The officers and soldiers of both regiments were to have the 
same pay and emoluments "as are allowed to the officers and soldiers in 
the continental service, so long as they contlmie tliereiny (9 Hen. 337, 
338.) These regiments continued in continental service till the close of the 
campaign in 1779, about two years. (Judge Marshall's letter. Report 191, 
1st session 22d Congress, page 66.) 

The service of these regiments in the continental army was but tempo- 
rary, and they no more became incorporated into the continental line than; 
did the numerous bodies of militia who, from time to time, from different 
States, joined that army, and while in service were paid by the continent, 
'i'his is api)arent from a great mass of facts, a few of which it will be suffi- 
cient to mention. They were called the 1st and 2d State regiments in all 
the returns made to the commander-in-chief, and such returns are numerous 
among the Washington Papers. The officers retained their State com- 
missions, and were never commissioned by Congress. In the three arrange- 
ments of the continental line, which took place during the time those regi- 
ments remained in continental service, viz : in September, 1778, March, 
1779, and September, 1779, they are not included or mentioned ; and after 
their return from continental service, they were arranged and reduced as 
State regiments, in obedience to a law of the State, passed at the November 
session in 1781. This arrangement, made in the month of Febrnary, 1782, 
by a board of officers appointed by the Governor, may be found at length 
in report No. 191, 1st session 22d Congress, pages 46 to 58. And, further, in 
the settlements by Virginia, under the depreciation act of November, 1781, 
the officers of both these regiments were paid as State officers ; their land 
bounties were also allowed them as State, and not as continental officers ; 
and they uniformly claimed half pay as State officers, under the promises 
of Virginia; and never, till 1830, asked for commutation under those of 
the United States. The decision, therefore, said to have been made by the 
Secretary of War, in 1830, by which the benefit of the act of May, 1828, 
was extended to the officers of Colonel Gibson's regiment, as continental 
officers, was without warrant in the history of the Virginia line to sustain 
it. This decision has since been repudiated by the passasre of the act of 
July 5, 1832, which recognised the regiment as a State regiment, by as- 
suming the payment of the half pay promised the oflicers by Virginia, as 
State officers. 

Although it would seem there could now be no doubt of the true charac- 
ter of Colonel Gibson's regiment, whatever might have been thought of it 
in 1830 ; yet. even since the act of July 5, 1832. it has sometimes been 
considered by the committee of the House as a continental regiment. Iii 



Rep, No. 436. 43 

fact, it has been suffered to assume a kind of amphibious character, some- 
times being treated as a State, and sometimes as a continental regiment. 
Thus, on the same 22d of December, 1837, on which the bill allowing the 
heirs of Vawters the excess of the half pay for life over the commutation, 
on the ground that the regiment was a State regiment, was reported to the 
House, another bill was reported from the same committee, by another 
member of it, allowing to the heirs of Colonel Gibson the excess of his 
commutation over his half pay for life, on the ground that the regiment 
was continental, and not iStnte ; the half pay for life of Colonel Gibhon, 
from the circumstance of his dying early, amounting to a less sum than his 
commutation. Both these bills were pending through the whole of the 
last Congress, but remained unacted on. 

Lieutenant Vawters received a warrant for 2,G66| acres of land, as a 
lieutenant of the ^'iate line, on the 21st of January, 17S3, and does not 
seem to have had any subsequent allowance. 

Major John Roberts, of the convention guards. 

May 25, 1832, an act passed granting commutation pay and interest to 
Major John Roberts, under which he has received from the Treasury 
$9,040 23. 

On the 11th of January, 1779. John Roberts was appointed a captain in 
a regiment raised by order of Virginia, and also of Congress, to guard the 
prisoners of Burgoyne's army which had been marched from tlie north to 
Charlottesville, in Albemarle county, Virginia; on the 5th of March, 1779, 
lie was promoted to a majority in the same regiment, and served as major 
in the same until the 1st of May, 1781, as appears by a certificate from 
Auditor Heath, of Virginia, showing for what service he was paid by that; 
State. It is alleged that he served until the regiment was disbanded, and 
never resigned or gave up his commission ; and, supposing such to be the 
case, the question arises, whether he was entitled to commutation ; or, ni 
other words, whether the officers of that regiment were among those who 
could be entitled to the benefit of that provision 1 

On the 16th of October, 1778, Congress directed General Washington, in 
case certain terms were not complied with by Sir Henry Clinton, in relation 
to the prisoners captured at Saratoga, that he cause them to be removed to 
Charlottesville, in Albemarle county, Virginia ; and the board of war were 
authorized to appoint a proper person to superintend them, and to apply to 
the Governor of Virginia for a sufficient force of militia to guard them. 
On the I9th of December, 1778, the General Assembly of Virginia passed 
a resolution empoweriuir the Governor, with the advice of the Council, to 
raise " a regiment of soldiers of six hundred men, rank and file, with proper 
officers to command them, for the particular purpose of guarding the 
British prisoners then, or who thereafter might be, in the Commonwealth. 

On the 9th of January, 1779, Congress came to the following resolu- 
tions, viz : 

" Resolved, That a battalion consisting of six hundred men, properly offi- 
cered, be forthwith raised on continental establishment in Virginia, for the 
space of one year from the time of their enlistment, unless sooner dischar- 
ged, under tlie direction of the Governor and Council of that State, who are 
hereby empowered to appoint the officers of the said battalion out of those 
of the Virginia line who have been left out of the late arrangement of 



44 Rep. No. 436. 

the continental army, as far as their numbers will reach ; the regiment to 
consist of one lieutenant colonel commandant and captain, one major and 
captain, six captains, one captain-lieutenant, seven lieutenants, nine ensigns, 
one surgeon, one surgeon's mate, eiglit companies of seventy-five men each, 
including corporals, three sergeants, one drum, and one fife to each company. 

" Resolved, That these troops be stationed at, and not removed (except to 
such distance as the duty of the post may require) from the barracks, in 
Albemarle county, as guards over the convention troops; that they receive, 
the usual pay of the continental army, and a suit of clothes as a bounty to 
«ach non-commissioned officer and private. 

" Resolved, That, as soon as the Siud regiment shall be so far completed as 
to be able to do the duty of the post, the militia now in service there be 
discharged." 

From the circumstance that these resolutions of Congress provide that 
this battalion should be "raised on continental establishment," it is argued 
that the officers of the battalion were necessarily entitled to half pay and 
the commutation of it. The connnittee do not perceive that this conse- 
quence fellows. The word establishment, in a military sense, is not synon- 
ymous with the word line, but is much more comprehensive. The term 
line of the army, in its proper sense, and in that in which it is used in the 
commutation resolutions of 22d March, 1783, is applicable to that portion 
only of the army which is intended for field operations, or the exertion of 
physical force against an enemy. It is used in contradistinction to the staff 
department, the business of statf officers being, not to figlit in the field, but 
to supply and superintend what are usually called the nuiniments of war, 
such as arms, clothing, subsistence, and whatever regards its health. The 
term establishment is much more comprehensive. When we speak of the 
military establishment, the peace establishment, or the war establishment, 
of a country or government, we evidently intend to embrace not merely the 
force employed in field operation:-, but also every other branch of the army 
which sustains and gives efijcieiicy to warlike efforts. We have already 
seen, in the. examination of the case of Colonel Harrison, that but a portion 
of the officers on continental establishment, viz: those only who belong to 
the line oj the army, are entitled to commutation pay. It of consequence 
follows, that the putting of this regiment of guards on " continental establish- 
ment" does not necessarily entitle the officers to commutation. We must 
look for furtiier evidence of their right to that provision. 

The fact that the regiment was paid by the continent, affords no such 
evidence. State troops, and also militia, were uniformly in continental pay 
when they were attached, as was often the case, to the continental army, 
or were otherwise employed in the service of the continent. It was the bu- 
siness of the continent to guard the Saratoga prisoners ; and it is according- 
ly found, that when Governor .lelferson on an emergency ordered a battal- 
ion of infantry and a company of cavalry of State troops to Charlottesville, 
Congress inuDediately resolved (10th December, 1779) that they "be con- 
sidered in continental service, and receive continental pay and rations, while 
doing duty at the convention barracks." It cannot be supposed that this 
temporary employment of State troops gave their officers any right to claim 
continental land bounties or half pay. 

But the temporary character of the corps of guards, as well as the limited 
service they were to perform, shows clearly that they were never intended 
to belong to the line of the army, and could iiot have been included in the 
half-pay promises. 



Rep. No. 436. 45 

1. The battalion was to be raised for one year. 

2. The officers to be appointed, not by Congress, bnt by the Governor of 
Vircjinia. 

3. The re2:iment was not bonnd to military service generally, not even 
to repel an invasion of the State, bnt was " to be t<taiwned at and not re- 
rtioved (except to sncii distance as the duty of the post might recjuire)/ro7« 
the barracks in Albemarle county^ as guards over the convention troops," 

The report of the Ijoard of war, whicii contained the draught of the reso- 
lutions of 9th of January, 1779. and recommended their passage, (seepapers- 
of the old Congress in the State Department, No. 147, vol. 3,) is still more 
explicit, that this regiment was not nitended to be incorporated into the con- 
tinental line. After stating tiie great expense and other inconveniences at- 
tendmg the employment of militia as guards, and recommending the pas- 
sage of the resolutions in the very words in which they were adopted, the 
report proceeds and concludes as follows : " Tiie board are informed that 
this resrinient might be very soon completed, if orders for that purpose were 
now issued, as the people of that country arc apprehensive of a draught to 
serve in the couthiental army ; to avoid v/hich, they would enlist, on the con- 
dition of being stationed at the barracks, and not subject to be ordered to 
camp." As no distinction is made between the officers and men, in regard 
to the character ol the service to be performed, the officers v/ould, of course, 
be connnissioned to serve in tlie regiment of giittrds, and not in the army 
generally. This would have been the case, had continental commissions 
been granted. But the commissions were not only tims limited to that par- 
ticular service, but they were State, and not continental commissions. Since 
the present inquiry lias been instituted, the original commission of Colonel 
Francis Taylor, t[ie commander of the regiment, has been produced ; and 
if that is to have any Vv^eight in determining the character of the officers, 
of his corps, it would seein to settle the question that they did not belong to 
the continental line. The commission, which is dated March 5th, 1779, is 
signed by P. Henry, Governor of Virginia, and appoints him " colonel of the 
regiment of vohnitecrs for gnnrding the convention troops at Charlottes- 
ville^''' enjoining him to obey all orders from the Executive of Virginia^ 
agreeably to the regulations of the General Assembly, &.c. (For copy of 
Colonel Taylor's commission, see appendix No. 14.) 

The object of the half pay resolutions of 17S0 was to offer an induce- 
ment to such officers as belonged to the line of the army, holding unlimited 
continental commissions as to time and service, to continue in the army to 
the end of the war ; and to reward such of them as might be left out of com- 
mand by the reduction of the army tiien about to take place. It would be 
an absurdity to apply these resolutions to a body of State officers, like those 
of the convention guards, appointed to a local and desirable service, and not 
bonnd to serve to the end of the war. 

If it were still possible to doubt as to the rights of the officers of this corps, the 
contemporaneous construction ought to settle the question. The resolutions 
of October, 1780, as has before been mentioned, specify the regiments whose 
officers are promised half pay. Among them are, from Virginia, eight regi- 
ments of infantry, one of artillery, and two of cavalry. In February, 1781, 
the Virginia line, as we have before seen, was reduced to that number of 
regiments ; and, in the arrang:ement making such reduction, neither the re- 

• • • • I TVT 

giment of guards, nor a single officer belonging to it, is mentioned. None 
of these officers received bounty land or commutation pay of the United 



46 Rep. No. 436. 

States at the close of the war, or, so far as is known, applied for either. 
The officers oil the regiment did not at that period consider themselves re- 
tirino; or supernumerary officers, but as officers discharged from the service 
by the disbanding of the regiment. Of this there is abundant evidence. 
None of them received land, at that period, from Virginia, for services to the 
end of the war; which they would have been entitled to, had they been retiring 
or supernumerary officers, or applied for it as such officers. It will be remem- 
bered that the resolutions of Virginia which allowed land bounties for a ser- 
vice of three years required that it should be a continued, uninterrupted 
service. There were some officers who had, at two or more different peri- 
ods, performed service, in the whole, for more than three years, though no 
single term of their service had been of that length. These oflicers ap- 
plied to the Assembly of Virginia for the usual allowance of bounty to offi- 
cers of their ranlc, and their applications were often successful. Among the 
applications v/ere several from the officers of the guards, x\nd there were, 
also, petitions from them for other allowances. 

On the 2Slh of May, 17S3, Francis Taylor, colonel of the regiment, pre- 
sented a memorial to the House of Delegates, of which the following entry 
is found on the journal : 

"A memorial of Francis Taylf^r, colonel of the late regiment of guards, 
on behalf of himself and the officers and soldiers of the said regiment, was 
presented to the House and read ; setting forth that the said regiment was 
raised by a resolution of Assembly of the 19tli of December, 1778, taken 
upon continental establishment by a resolution of Congress of the 9th of 
January, 1779, and disbanded in the month of June, 17tBl ; and that said 
regiment never received any pay, but in depreciated paper money ; and 
praying that the pay of the said regiment may be made good, in the same 
manner with that of other troops in the service of this State; also, stating 
that the memorialist, from five years' service in the army, first as a major in 
the continental line, and then as colonel of the said regiment, conceives 
himself entitled to the half pay of a colonel, and praying that such half pay 
may be made good to him." On this petition it may be observed, that the 
claim to half pay is not made by Colonel "^Faylor as a retiring officer from 
the regiment of guards, but for a service of five years ; the first part of 
which he stales to have been in the continental line, and the latter part in 
the recriment of guards ; clearly implying that, in his understanding, the lat- 
ter service was not in the continental line. The said memorial was referred 
to a committee, which on the 5th of June made a favorable report on the 
application for the depreciation pay of the officers and soldiers of the regi- 
ment, and reported that such part of the memorial as prayed for half pay 
for life for himself be rejected : which report was accepted by the House, and 
resolutions to that effect were adopted. Colonel Taylor then, on the 17th of 
June, presented his petition for land bounty; wdiich being referred, the com- 
mitteeon the 26th of June made report, with several resolutions, which report 
and resolutions were read three times and agreed to by the House, as fol- 
lows : 

" It appears to the committee that the said Francis Taylor wa?, in the 
3'ear 1776, appointed a captain of a company in the 2d Virginia regiment; 
that he continued to act in that capacity until the year 1778, when he was 
appointed a major ; and, by the arrangement at White Plains in the month 
of September in. the said year, be became a supernumerary officer, being a 
junior major. 



Rep. No. 436. 47 

«' It also appears that the said Francis Tajdor was, on the 24th of Decem- 
ber, in the said year 177S, appointed aud commissioned a heiitenant colonel 
of the battalion of volunteers to guard the British prisoners ; that, on the 
5th of March following, he was appointed and commissioned colonel of 
the said regiment, and continued in tlio service till the month of Jmie, 
17SI, ivkeit (he said I'egiment was disbanded. 

" Resolved, in the opinion of this committee, That the petition of the 
said Francis Taylor is reasonable. 

" Resolved, in the opinion of this cotnmittee, That the said Francis 
Taylor ought to be allowed the same bounty in lands, as is given by law to 
a major in the continental line." 

From these proceedings we learn that there was no pretence, at the close 
of the war, that the officers of the guards were retiring officers ; and, from 
the fact that Colonel Taylor was allowed land only for the rank lie held in 
the continental line, viz : that of major, it may be fairly inferred that ser- 
vice in the regiment of guards was not looked upon as a service entuled to 
peculiar favor. 

The following resolution, which is copied from the journal of the House 
of Delegates of Virginia of 9th November, 1791, will show that up to that 
period the officers of the regiment of guards considered themselves, and 
were considered by the Legislature, as officers discharged from service by 
the disbanding of the regiment, and not as supernumerary or retiring offi- 
cers : 

•' Resohed, That the petition of Samuel Overton Pettus, late lieutenant 
in the regiment of guards, setting forih that he enlisted in the 9th Virginia 
regiment on the 2d day of March, 1776, and continued to serve in the said 
regiment until the 4ih of October, 1777, at which time he was taken pris- 
oner at the battle of Germantown, aud remained in captivity until the ISlh 
of June, 1778, at which time he was released from confinement, and re- 
turned to this State for the recovery of his health ; that, as soon as that 
was restored, he, on the 13th of January, 1779, was appointed an ensign in 
the said regiment of guards, and continued to serve as such until the 
10th of June, 1781, at which time the rcgitupnt ivas discharged : that, 
although he has served ^ye years in the army, from his services being per- 
formed in difierent regiments, he is precluded from receiving that quantity 
of land that has been granted to officers who have continued in uniform 
service for three years ; and praying that the same quantity of land maybe 
granted him that hath been granted to officers of the same rank, is reason- 
able." 

It is thus seen that, down to the 3^ear 1791, the idea had not occurred that 
the officers of this regiment of guards were, in any sense, supernumerary 
officers, and, as such, entitled to either land or commutation. The discovery 
is of modern origin, and is at least entitled to the merit of ingenuity. It 
lias been pursued to no little profit by the heirs of the officers of that regi- 
ment, or by speculators in their names, at least so far ns the claims to land 
bounties are concerned. Thus, Major Roberts, who does not appear to have 
been in other service than that of the guards, on the 7th December, 1831, 
was allowed 5,333 acres of land as a iriajor in the continental line. Francis 
Taylor, who, in 1783, claimed only to have served five years, and who re- 
ceived land as a major for three years' service by special act of the Legis- 
lature, on the 1st of October, 18U0, obtained another warrant for 889 acres 
for a seventh year's service ; and on the 12th of February, 1808, he ob- 



48 Rep. No. 436. 

tained another warrant for the same qnanthy for an eighth year's service ,- 
and the commissioner of revohuionary claims of Virginia, on the 10th of 
December, 183-5, reports his heirs entiiled to an additional allowance of the 
difference between the rank of a major and that of a colonel, being abont 
1,800 acres more. James Barton, who qnitted the service the loth of Decem- 
ber, 1780, abont six months before tiie dissolution of the regiment, and who 
never perlormed a continued service of tiiree years so as to entitle him to 
any land, on the 17t!i of March, 1834; was allowed over 4.700 acres for a. 
service of seven years and one and a lialf mon'h. Garland Burnley, who 
was discharired vvith tlie regiment in Jime, 1781, on the 26ih of Febrnary, 
1834, was allowed 4,000 acres of land, as the bonnty of a captain, for a 
service to the end of the war. Lieutenant Colonel William Fontaine, who 
was disbanded with the regiment of guards in June, 1781, received, on the 
25th of Febrnary, 1834, a warrant for. 6,000 acres, for a service to the end 
of the war. On the 25th of Febrnary, 1S34, Richard Panlett, on his claim 
of having been a supernumerary by tb.e disbanding of the regiment of 
irnards, was allowed .2.()ut)| acres' of land, as a lieutenant, fur a service to 
The eud of the war. The committee have not the means before them for 
making an examination into the allowance to the other officers of the regi- 
ment of guards ; but these may doubtless be taken as samples of the wliole. 

Colo'iel George Baylor. 

By act of the 25th of May, 1832, the commutation pay of a colonel 
of Ciivalry was granted to Ann'l). Baylor, representative of Colonel George 
Baylor ; and she has been paid from the Treasnrj^, by virtue of the saine, 
the sum of S 16,9-50 44. 

Colonel Baylor's name is on the '■ officer's book" in the Bonnty Land 
Office, returned as entitled to commutation pay; and as it was alleged he 
died in the island of Barbadoes (whither he had gone for the recovery of 
his health) abont the year 1781, the presumption was thought to be raised, 
that the claim for commutation had remained nnpresented during his life- 
time, by reason of his absence, and subsequently for the want of knowledge 
in his representatives of its existence. But tiiis presumption (if, indeed, 
there were any) is rebutted and overthrown by a further examination of 
the claim. 

Against the name of Colonel Baylor, on the » officer's book," is tliis entry r 
« Nol settled with by Mr. Dunscomb, to a|c ;" indicating^, as might readily be 
supposed, that he was not paid his connmifation because he was to account 
(" to a|c") for other matters, or, at least, that th.ere were other matters fj^r which 
he Was to account on the settlement of his commutation. On examining the 
Treasury books of the Revolution, there is found an open unsettled account 
against Colonel Baylor, for sundry large advances made him, principally 
to enable him to mount and equip his regiment of cavalry, amoutiting to 
the sum of SJ^98,432 66, and against which there appear no credits. It 
•was doubtless owing to this large balance that a fmal-settlement certificate 
■was not issued to iiim at the clo.se of the war. It cannot be presumed 
the committee would have reported in favor of the claim, had they known 
of the existence of this balance against him. 

But there are other facts connected with the claims of Colonel Baylor's 
representative, wdiich, as they serve to throw additional light on the trans- 
actions between him and the United States, and to show the liability of 



Rep. No. 436. 49 

Congress to error in the allowance of ancient claims, it is deemed not im- 
proper to state — 

There have been three several modern acts passed by Congress for the 
relief of Ann D. Baylor, representative of Colonel Baylor, under which 
-has been paid her the sum of $33,022 26, as follows : 

Under act of May 20, 1826, (for pay as colonel) - - $1,192 77 

Under act of May 29, 1S30', (loan-office certificates) - - 14,879 05 

Under act of May 25, 1832, (commutation) - - 16,950 44 

As tlie basis of these acts, there were three several reports of commit- 
tees of the House, in neither of which is the existence of the foregoing 
account aganist Colonel Baylor mentioned. The second act, that of May 
29, 1830, was for the payment of loan-office certificates issued March 31, 
1778, at the loan office in Virginia, as follows, viz: 

6 certificates, numbered 3,358 to 3,363, for ^-300 each; 

14 certificates, numbered 3,366 to 3,379, for 300 each ; 

4 certificates, numbered 525 to 528, for 500 each ; 

which certificates, (reduced to specie value,) with the interest, made up the 
sum of $14,879 05 before mentioned. These certificates, it was alleged, 
were lost, though no proof to that effect was produced ; and it being certi- 
fied from tlie Treasury that they appeared to be outstanding and unsatisfied^, 
the committee reported in favor of their allowance. 

Among the items of charge against Colonel Baylor, making up the be- 
forementioned sum of over $290,000, is a charge for a warrant from 
the Treasury of the United States on William Armstead, commissioner of 
the loan oflice for the State of Virginia, of $35,000. This charge is under 
date of March 11, 1778. On the loan office register of certificates issued 
by the commissioner for Virginia, under date of March 31, 1778, it appears 
that loan-office certificates were issued to Colonel Baylor as follows, viz : 

6 certificates, numbered 252 to 257, $1,000 each - - $6,000 

28 certificates, numbered 503 to 530, 500 each - - 14,000 

50 certificates, numbered 3,357 to 3,406, 300 each - - 15,000 



Making the precise sum of - - - $35,000 

before mentioned. There can be no doubt but that these loan-office certifi- 
cates are the proceeds of the warrant which twenty days previous had been 
drawn on the loan office by the Treasury, and that Colonel Baylor received 
them in lieu of the same. And when it is seen, by a comparison of dates 
and nimahers, that the identical certificates for which the representative of 
Colonel Baylor has been paid by special act of Congress formed a part of 
the above $35,000 standing charged to him on the books of the Treasury, 
unaccounted for, it will be readily perceived that their payment by the 
Government was an operation in financiering much more profitable to 
Mrs. Baylor than just to the United States, or creditable to the vigilance 
and discernment of the agents of the Government concerned in their al- 
lowance. Instead of allowing the certificates said to be outstanding to be 
passed to the credit of Colonel Baylor ; or, in other words, allowing them 
to cancel the charge against him of those very certificates ; the money is 
permitted to be drawn for them, and the charge to remain unsettled. The 
4 



50 Rep. No. 436. 

whole sum, llien. of upwards of $33,000 which has been drawn from the 
Treasury, has been paid, without any vaHd evidence that a dollar was due, 
and with every reasonable probability that Colonel Baylor was a debtor to 
the Goverument, instead of its creditor. 

Colonel Baylor, having entered the service early, and conlinued in it to 
the end of the war, was entitled to land from Vn-ginia, which he received 
in 1783 and 1784. 

Dr. William Carter. 

On tlie 25th of May, 1832, an act was passed granting commutation pay, 
with interest, to the representatives of Dr. William Carter, as surgeon in 
the revolutionary army. The sum paid was ^10,848 29. 

The report of the committee, on which the act was founded, states the 
service of Dr. Ca.rter to have been as surgeon in the continental hospital 
at Williamslnirg, in Virginia, from July, 1776, until the close of the war. 

That Dr. Carter did serve in said hospital as a surgeon, at sorwe period of 
the Revolution, seems to be satisfactorily proved : but that he continued in 
tlie service to the end of the war, appears to be a matter of more doubt. 

It appears, from the })apers iu the case of Dr. Carter, that he was a resident 
of Richmond, and died in that city about the year 1798. That he should 
liave been a resident of the place where the commissioner of the United 
States kept his otlice for several years, in adjusting the accounts of the offi- 
cers of the army, and should not have received his commutation pay, is 
calculated to throw a strong suspicion on the validity of the claim. On look- 
ing into the evidence by which his service to the end of the war is shown, it 
is found to consist of a single certificate, bearing date the 25th of October, 
1791, and signed J. M. Gait, who appears to have'been a field surgeon in the 
State service of Virginia, declariiiir that " Dr. William Carter was appointed 
surgeon to the continental hosjjtal established at Williaiusburg in July, 
1776; and that, to his certain knowledge, he continued in service to the end 
of the war."' No facts or circumstances of his service are stated, and no in- 
formation is given from which it can be ascertained when, in the opinion 
of Dr. Gait, the war was ended, or to what date Dr. Carter served. The 
fact, also, that that certificate was ijiven several years after the close of the 
war, is calculated to lessen the weight which might otherwise have been 
given to it. 

From a certificate which the present committee have obtained from the 
auditor of Virginia, it appears that Dr. Carter, on the 2d of June. 1784, set- 
tled his accounts with the auditors of that State, under the act of Novem- 
ber session, 1781, for his services as a surgeon of the continental hospital, 
and received his pay up to the 31^^ of July, 1781, and no longer. From this 
it would seem his service ended at that period, and that of course he could 
not have served to the end of the war, as certified by Dr. Gait. This sup- 
position is confirmed, beyond dispute, by testimony furnished by Dr. Carter 
himself. On the 26th of May, 1784, Dr. Carter presented his petition to the 
House of Delegates of Virginia ; on which the follou'ing proceedings, copied 
from the journal, were bad, viz : 

'• A petition of William Carter was presented to the House, and read, set- 
ting Ibrih that he acted as surgeon in the continental hospital, from the 1st 
of July, 1776; (0 (he olst of Jul]/, 1781, and that he has only received a 



Rep. No. 436. 51 

small part of his pav ; and praying that the depreciation of the same may- 
be made g;ot>d to him, and that he^may also be allowed a bounty in land. 

'« A motion was made ; and the question being put, that the said petition be 
referred to the consideration of a committee, it passed in the negative. 

» Resolved, That the petition be rejected."' 

From several facts and circumstances appearing in the case, this commit- 
tee are inclined to the opinion that the rank and service ot Dr. Carter were 
not such as would have given him a title to commutation, had he 
served to the end of the war ; but as it is very clear that he left the service 
too early to claim it, whatever his rank might have been, they have not 
thought It worth while to go into an examination of that question. 

Notwithstanding the rejection of the claim of Dr. Carter to the land boun- 
ty by the Yn-ginia House of Delegates, as before slated, he was on the 7th 
of February, 1792, on the beforementioned evidence of Dr. Gait, allowed 
6,000 acres of land, for service as a surgeon of the hospital to the end of the 
war ; and on the 30th of April, 1S07, he was allowed 1,4113 acres more, for 
service of seven years and five months, without any further evidence of his 
•continuance in service to the end of the war. 

Edmund Brooke^ of Harrison's aitlllenj. 

The five years' full pay of a lieutenant of arlillery, with interest, was 
j^Uowed to Edmund Brooke, by special act of March 25, 1S32, under which 
he received ^5,020 02. . 

He states that he was appointed a lieutenant in Colonel Charles Harri- 
.son's re<rinient of artillery in February, 1781, and served in the same in 
Yirginia until a/ety ireeks before the siege of York, when ho was compelled 
by sickness, contracted in the service, to leave the army until his health 
was restored; that he had no intention whatever of re-iuniing his commis- 
sion, "but left camp by the advice of his commanding otiicer, Captain Cole- 
man, with the most fixed determination to join the said rtgiment so soon as 
his health would permit; which the conclusion of the war, by the capitula- 
tion of Yorktown, rendered unnecessary." (See Rep. No. 19, 2d sess. 18th 
Cong.. pao:es 1 and 15.) He, therefore, never afterwards joined the army. 
Y^ork was^ invested on the 30th of September, 1781 ; and as Brooke's ser- 
vice is stated to have commenced in the preceding February, his actual 
service could not have exceeded a period of eight months. 

The .statement of Brooke, so far as it respects his appointment and service 
in Colonel Harrison's regiment, in the sprincr and summer of 1781, was cor- 
roborated by the atfidavits of three or four witnesses, some ot whom were 
officers of that regiment; and it appeared that, on the 19ih of February, 
1784, Brooke had been allowed a land bnunty by Yiri/inia, as lieutenant, 
for a service to the end ot the war ; and that, on tlie 3ii of Ahirch succeed- 
«ig, he had been paid by the Stale of Virginia for his services as lieutenant, 
fixnn FebrucU-y 1, 1781, to the 31st of December following. 

In 17S4 or 1785, Lieutenant Brooke presented his claim for commutation 
to Mr. Dunscomb, the commissioner who settled the accounts of the officers 
of the army in Virginia, by whom it was disallowed. He does not appear 
to have reriev^red his application on the opening of the act of limitation for 
one year, under the resolution of Julv, 1787, nor under that for two years, 
by the act of March, 1792; but, froin 1802, he prosecuted it before Con- 
gress, from time to time, against some six or eight successive unfavorable 



52 Rep. No. 436. 

reports of committees, until the year 1830, when it received the favorable 
decision of Congress, as before stated. 

The claimant stated that he was appointed a lieutenant in Colonel Har- 
rison's artillery, but he did not state by whom, by what authority, or in 
what manner. He did not produce his commission, or account for its non-nro- 
duction. It is not asserted that he had a commission, except by indirection 
" that he had no intention of resigning" it. His name is not on the arrano-c! 
ment of the officers of Colonel Harrison's regiment, made at Winchester on 
the 1st of January, 1783, nor on any other arrangement or roll of the regiment 
now to be found. It is not on the list of officers entitled to three months' 
pay in 1782, and four months' pay in 1783; nor is it found on the officer's 
book. And the force which might otherwise have been o-jven to Lieuten- 
ant Brooke's early land allowance, for a service to the end of the war is 
very much weakened by the fact now ascertained, that it was made on the 
evidence of his own single affidavit. 

The allowance of commutation was refused by IMr. Dunscomb, the com- 
missioner for Virginia in 1784 or 1785, because, as he certifies, Edmund 
Brooke's name did not appear in tlie official return made to him bv the 
paymaster of the regiment commanded by Colonel Charles Hari'ison. 
" This list," says Mr. Dunscomb, " was the evidence by which the accounts 
of that regiment were settled, the same being founded upon the last musters 
that were made, and the best hifonnation that could then be had on the 
subject." (See Kep. No. 19, 2d sess. ISth Cong., page 17.) 

It w-ould seem there could not, at thattime,%ave'^becn any serious diffi- 
culty m Lieutenant Brooke's provin^r the necessary facts to entitle him to 
commutation, had they existed ; and the fact of his acquiescence -n the de- 
cision of the commissioner, without renewing his claim until 18(i2, when 
lie states the officers under whom he served to have been dead, and that 
therefore, he was unalile to obtain their testimony, goes stron<r|y to confirm 
the propriety of the decision of Mr. Dunscomb; which decision appears by 
his certificate, to have been very properly founded upon "the best infer- 
mation which could then be had on the subject." 

A consideration of the condition of Colonel Harrison's retriment in 1781 
may, perhaps, furnish a key to the facts in Lieutenant Bro^oke's case. It 
appears, from the evidence presented by Lieutenant Brooke, that, in the 
autumn of 1780, there was so great a deficiencv of rank and file in Colonel 
Harrisoifs regiment, that they had been consolidated into two companies 
and marched to the south to join General Greene: that a considerable por- 
tion of the oflicers had been left in Virginia, without command • and that 
on the invasion of the State, in the winter or spring of 1781, the other com- 
panies of the regiment, or a portion of them, liad been filled up by draucrhts 
from the militia. Now, with this superabundance of oflicers, it seems highly 
improbable that the number would have been increased by o-rantino- new 
commissions ; but the designation of an individual of the rnilitia, by the 
commander of a corps, to perform temporary duty in a particular station 
which might happen for the time being to be vacant, might very well be 
expected. If the appointment of Lieutenant Brooke were of this character 
It may account for the fl^ct that no commission is produced or described' 
and for his name not appearing on the rolls of the regiment; and yet, the 
fact of his acting as lieutenant in the same corps with officers' of Harrison's 
legiment; may have enabled him to obtain his allowance from Viro-inia 



Rep. No. 436. 53 

thono-h, in reality, he might have had no actual appointment as an officer 
in the continental line. 

On the whole, considering that the service of Lieutenant Brooke was but 
for the term of eight months, at most ; that, for such service, he had received 
his full pay for eleven months, and also 2,660 acres of land ; and that, upon 
his own showing, he was not actually^ but only constructively^ in service 
to the end of the war ; and considering also the weakness and uncertainty 
of the testimony by which his claim is supported, it is respectfully sub- 
mitted that his claim was not of that clearly meritorious and pressing 
character whicli, at this late period, demanded the special interposition of 
Congress. 

Colonel John Thornton. 

On the 9th of February, 1833, an act was passed, granting to the repre- 
sentative of John Thornton the commutation pay and interest of a colonel 
of infantry of the revolutionary army. The sum paid was $13,594 82. 

The report states that John Thornton was appointed captain in the 3d 
Virginia regiment in February, 1776; promoted to the rank of major tlie 
20th of March, 1777, in one of the new regiuients; and, in the same year, 
promoted to the rank of lieutenant colonel; was in actual service more than 
three years, and never resigned ; that he made exertions to raise the new- 
regiment until the summer'of 1778. "after which he was not called into 
service, but was ready to perform service when required ; and that, m 1781, 
during the invasion of Virginia, he had the command of a regiment of mili- 
tia, as a continental officer," by order of General Lafayette." Of all which 
there is some parol, but no documentary proof ; it being stated that his com- 
missions, and other papers, had been mislaid or lost. 

This statement, on its face, is improbable in the highest degree. It is 
believed there could have been no such case as an officer in the Virginia 
line, and especially one of the rank of lieutenant colonel, who continued to 
hold his commission from the summer of 1778 to the close of the war, or 
even until the year 1781, without being called into actual service. If he 
had retired in 1778, for want of comniand, as he alleges, he would have 
been a supernumerary of that year, and not entitled to commutation ; if he 
had continued in the army, he would have been called upon to perform 
service. He must, therefore, have left the service, either by death or resig- 
nation, before the arrangement of September, 1778. 

The documentary evidence is conclusive against his claim. His name 
is not found on the arrangement of September, 1778; or on either of the 
five succeeding arrangements of the Virginia line; or on the "officer's 
book," in the Bounty Land Office; or on the list of officers entitled to specie 
pay in 1782 and 1783. Nor did he receive any depreciation pay from Vir- 
ginia, which renders it almost certain that he could have performed very 
little service after the 1st of January, 1777; for it is not to be presumed he 
would have omitted to demand his depreciation pay, had any considerable 
sum been due him. But there is documentary evidence of his resignation. 
Among the documents furnished from the auditor's office at Richmond, to 
the Commissioner of Pensions, is the copy of "a roll of the resigned and 
supernumerary officers of the Virginia continental and State troops;" on 
which is found the name of John Thornton, as a captain, appointed Febru- 
ary 12,, 1776, and afterwards " resignedy 



54 Rep. No. 436. 

His allowance of land, as might be expected in a case so decidedly bad, 
is of modern date. A warrant for 6,000 acres, being the quantity due an 
officer of the rank of lieutenant colonel, was issued to him on the 24th of 
April, 1S33, for a service of three years. His term of service could not have 
exceeded two years — probably it was less than one. And yet, in 1835 he 
is reported by John H. Smith, the Virginia commissioner of revolutionary 
claims, as entitled to an additional allowance for a service of over six years; 
a warrant for which yet remains to be issued. In this, as in most other 
cases of modern grants of land warrants, the documentary evidence at Rich- 
mond seems either to have been overlooked, or wholly disregarded by the 
authorities of Virginia. 

Captain Thomas Triplett. 

In 1831, a Thomas Triplett (or a person calling himself by that name) of 
Bath county, Kentucky, made his declaration for the benefit of the act of 
May 15, 1828, and filed evidence in the Treasury Department, showing 
that he was a captain in the continental army of the Revolution, of the Vir- 
ginia line, and had served as such to the end of the war. In the month of 
October, 1831, he was admitted to the benefit of that act, and he received 
under it $3,354 66, In October, 1831, on filing in the proper office a cer- 
tificate of the Secretary of the Treasury of his admission to the benefit of the 
act of 1828, a bounty-land warrant of 300 acres was obtained for him from 
the United States; and on the 2d of March, 1833, an act was passed grant- 
ing him commutation pay, with interest; under which was paid the sura 
of $7,245 45, making the whole sum drawn from the Treasury (reckoning 
the bounty-land scrip at $1 25 per acre) $10,975 11, 

After these payments had been made, it was discovered that the Thomas 
Triplett who had been a captain in the continental army had died in Vir- 
ginia many years before, and that ihe testimony on which all the allowan- 
ces had been obtained was false and fraudulent, having been manufactur- 
ed by another Thomas Triplett, a relative (perhaps a son) of the individual 
who had been made to personate tlie continental officer. For the getting up 
of this testimony, the last mentioned Thomas Triplett was indicted in the 
United States district court of Kentucky for forgery and subornation of per- 
jury ; and about the year 183.5, being convicted, he was sentenced to im- 
prisonment, and afterwards died in jail. 

At the second session of the last Congress, the petition of a Thomas Trip- 
lett of Virginia was presented to the House of Representatives, claiming, in 
behalf of himself and his sisters, to be the true heirs of the real Thomas 
Triplett of the continental array, and asking Congress to pass an act allow-;- 
ing them the commutation and interest which had been fraudulently ob-' 
tained by ihe false Thomas Triplett, the younger, of Kentucky. The com- 
mittee to whom the petition was referred, taking it for granted that Thomas 
Triplett, the elder, of Virginia, was entitled to commutation, and being sat- 
isfied that the petitioners were the true heirs, reported a bill for the pay- 
ment to them of the said sum of $7,245 45. The bill was engrossed and 
lead a third time in the House, but, being opposed in its passage, it was on 
the 8th of June, 1838, postponed to a future day. The committee then ad- 
dressed a letter to the Third Auditor, inquiring after the service of Captain 
Thomas Triplett in the revolutionary army, and received for answer that 



Rep. No. 436. 55 

it appeared from muster-rolls in his office that Captain Thomas Triplett 
resigned his commission on the 29th of April, 1778. 

It ought, perhaps, to he mentioned as another remarkable feature of this 
case, that the certificate of the county court, by which the heirship of the 
ViWinia Triplelts was proved, on their application for a second payment of 
the'commutation, shows that Captain Triplett died in the year 1780 ; thus 
upon its face precluding him and his heirs from all claim to commutation 

There was but one Captain Thomas Triplett who at any time belonged 
to the continental line ; and as he left the service, by resignation, on the 
29th of April, 1778, he could not possibly be entitled to bounty land from 
Virginia, for a service of three years, no forces having been in service as 
early as that date in 1775. Nevertheless, on the 14th of October, 1817, a 
land warrant for 4,666 acres issued for the services of Captain Triplett, for 
seven years. There is this consolation about the land warrant, that, though 
the claim to it was wholly unfounded, there is some degree of probability 
that it issued to the trne heirs! 

Captain John Thomas. 

On the 2d of March, 1S33, an act passed granting commutation pay and 
interest to Captain John Thomas, of the Virginia line ; on which has been 
paid $7,245 45. There was no evidence before the committee that reported 
the bill, except the certificate of the Secretary of the Treasury that Cap- 
tain Thomas had been admitted to the benefit of the act of May 15, 1828. 
There was no evidence before the Secretary of the Treasury, but that of 
the very weakest character. There was nothing in the office of the Third 
Auditor to show that Thomas was ever a continental officer ; nor is his 
name found on any of the arrangements on the officer's book, or on the list 
of ofticers entitled to specie pay in 1782 and 1783. The only documentary 
evidence which can be found of his services, and which was obtained by 
the select committee of the last session, is the certificate of the auditor of 
Virginia that John Thomas was paid by that State on the 30th of April, 
1785, for a service as captain of six months and three days, from the 28th 
of .January, 1779, to August 1st of the same year. This service was in the 
convention guards ; which accounts for the fact of his name not appear- 
ing on the arrangement of March, 1779, which it ought to have done if he 
had served in the continental line from January to August of that year. 
Althoup-h his service expired at so early a day, he was, nevertheless, on the 
3d of November, 1830, allowed 4,000 acres of land by Virginia, for a ser- 
vice to the end of the war; and in 1835 John H. Smith reports him en- 
titled to an additional allowance for over six years' service, a warrant for 
which yet remains to be issued. 

Lieute?iant Peter Foster. 

Included in the same act of March 2, 1833, which allowed commutation 
to John Thomas, was a grant of commutation with interest to Peter Foster, 
as a lieutenant of the Virginia continental line. The sura paid him was 
$4,830 31. 

On looking into the papers on which his claim was made, he is stated to 
have belonged to Colonel George Gibson's regiment, which, in our exami- 



^^ Rep. No. 436. 

nation of the claim of William Vawters, vve have sho^vn to have been a 
^tatc, and not a contmevtal regiment. Of course the rhim nn ] h! v? . ? 
States was wholly unfounded.^ But Foster dX%'' er e'^s I eu n^m to 
the end of the war m any corps, if, mdeed, he was an officer at a v Period 
of the war. He received no depreciation nav nf Virn-ini v ^ perioa 
riental or State officer; nor is his rame on a^^^^^^^^ '"""' "' "" ""T'- 

hsts of officers of the 'continental Ce o o^ t^u^uTe^'TI r f''] 
Gibson's regiment, which took place in And? 17ft2 hvT/ • u ^^""'^"^^ 
Jive of Virginia; where it woulJ brfoun^d'if l;Jlfd\hl bt^^^^^ 
had previously retired as a supernumerary officer Tl e servivl n T^V 
was shown, by parol evidence of the weaLst ohnr.PfPr a f '"'^^'^ 

dence he was^ Jn the 22d of Ma^ ^sSSwe^^^ :nd TounTy T ^6^^^^^ 
acres, for a service to the end of the war. ^ '^^^ 



Captain Thomas M'mor. 



July ^, 183^, It will be omitted in this renorf Tt ,c .:„h^.; 7 

that Ca,mi„ Minor belonged neither , X con nen.nrLrZcl^'i 

%^^ o7;-e"ni":r^- " Hrel^f t^H t t^Tr F 

Captain James Craine. 

land from th? United s „ °' ' a J "u'""'' '""' "'"o °'^''""^d ''"""'y 
with certainlv Vhn h„? ' .u"^'""' '">" ""^ ''<'?'"■'> " «"<' witness' slates, 

during he wVr „ j; . ff""eclion, he continued in the service 

neverrhets:™^: ;fe," "cSn C^rTr'^'"''-'; '^''J^ ^"-- -" 
a.r.,esterfie.d,„rS™^ 

la £: A.' ?„irhTs"n:„:';'.f.,!rn"T wr' ""^"^ ■• -—"oS 



Rep. No. 436. 57 

three years, which he received, by an allowance to him of 4,000 acres, on 
the lUth of December, 17S3. On the 12th of August, 1808, the authorities 
of Virginia leaped over the fact of his resignation, and made him an ad- 
ditional allowance of 1 .500 acres, being for a service of eight years and three 
months. Supposing his service to have ended hi May, 1782, when here- 
signed, it must, accorduig to this allowance, have commenced about four 
teen months before the battle of Lexington. 

Lieutenant John Taylor. 

May 30, 1834, an act passed granting the five years' full pay of a lieuten- 
ant to the representative of John Taylor, under which has been paid the 
sum of $1,600. 

He was a lieutenant in the convention guards, and served from the 18th 
of January, 1770, to the 15th of June, 1781, when the regiment was dis- 
banded. The officers of this regim.ent, as has been shown in the case of 
Major John Roberts, were not entitled to commutation. Of course, the 
claim of Lieutenant Taylor was unfounded. 

Since it has been discovered that, by the disbanding of this regiment, the 
officers became supernumerary to the end of the war, instead of being dis- 
charged, as during the simplicity of the revolutionary period bad been sup- 
posed, an allowance of bounty land for a service to the end of tbe war has 
been made to the representatives of Lieutenant Taylor. A warrant issued 
on the 13tlr of November, 1832, for 2,666 acres, for a service to the end of 
the war; and John U. Smith, in his report of December. 1835, thinks he 
may be entitled to an additional allowance for a service of over six years. 

Captain Everard Meade. 

%. 

On the 30th of June, 1834, an act passed granting the representatives of 
Everard Meade the five years' full pay of a captain of infantry, under which 
the sum paid was $2,40(J. 

It appears by a roll of the officers of the several Virginia regiments at 
their first organization, attached to the arrangement made at White Plains, 
that Everard Meade was commissioned a captain in the second regiment on 
the 8th of March, 1776; and by " a roll of the resigned and supernumerary 
officers of the Virginia continental and State line," found in the Pension 
Office, furnished from the auditor's office at Richmond, it appears he "re- 
signed" his commission in that regiment. The date of the resignation does 
not appear, but it was probably early in the year 1777. It was before Sep- 
tember, 1778, as his name does not appear among the officers of the second 
or any other regiment, on that arrangement, or on any of the subsequent ar- 
rangements. It was supposed by the committee who reported the bill, that 
he became a supernumerary at this period, instead of resigning ; but that 
would not affect his right to commutation, as supernumeraries before Octo- 
ber, 1780, were not entitled to the benefit of that provision. On leaving the 
line of the army, as before stated, he was appointed an aidde-camp to Major 
General Benjamin Lincoln, with the rank of major, in which capacity he 
served, as appears by a certificate from Auditor Heath, from the 1st of 
June, 1777, to the 1st of May, 1780 ; but he does not appear to have been 
in continental service after\s ards. He is said to have been in the State and 
militia service after this period; but as such service could not affect his 



58 Rep. No. 436. 

right to commutation, all the evidence in relation to it may be laid out of 
the case. ' 

As Major Meade does not appear to have been in continental service of 
any kind after May, 17S0, he could not of course have served therein to the 
end of the war, or have become a supernumerary under the resolution of 
the succeeding October of that year. It may be observed, that the service 
of Mojor Meade as aid de-camp to General Lincohi, though it gave him 
the rank of major, and entitled him to the monthly pay of one, would not, 
as we have seen in the case of Lieutenant Colonel Robert H. Harrison, en- 
title him to commutation pay — he being a stafi' officer, and the commuta- 
tion resolutions including only officers of the line. This claim, then, is 
wholly without foundation. 

On the 17th of January, 183S, the Conimittee on Revolutionary Claims 
reported a bill allowing thej representatives of Meade interest on his com- 
mutation pay, according to Ihe principles of the funding acts, wliich would 
have increased (he draft oil the Treasury from $2,400 to over $7,200. 
This bill remained unacted on. At the same session of the last Congress, 
the Senate passed a bill increasing the commutation pay of Meade from that 
of captain to a major ; which bill also received the favorable action of the 
committee of the House, but did not pass that body. 

Cornet William Teas. 

June 30, 1834, the commutation pay of a cornet of cavalry was granted 
by special act to the heirs of William Teas, under which they received 
$1,000. 

The evidence in this case was wholly by parol, and consisted of the affi- 
davits of two privates, who say they knew Teas in service, in Washington's 
corps of cavalry, in 1781 ; and one of them says he did duty as a cornet in 
that corps. No commission is produced, nor is the existence of one men- 
tioned. Teas died in 1821 without having made any claim for land of Vir- 
ginia, or for commutation of the United States, or to a pension under the 
act of 1818. His name is not found on any roll in the War Department, 
as an officer, nor did fie ever receive any depreciation pay from Virginia. 
The committee think it impossible lie could have been a cornet in the con- 
tinental line, and served to the end of the war, without leaving some trace 
of his service, of a documentary character. They are very clear that the 
evidence in support of the claim is wholly insufiicient. On the 17th of 
December, 1832, the heirs of Teas were allowed 2,666 acres of land by the 
Executive of Virginia, for a three years' service, proved by the same testi- 
mony which sustained his claim to commutation. 

Captain B idler Claiborne. 

The commutation pay of a captain was granted the legal representatives 
of BuUer Claiborne by act of June 30, 1834. 

The name of Buller Claiborne is not found on any of the arrangements 
of the Virginia line, on the list of officers entitled to specie pay in 1782 
and 1783, nor on " the officer's book." On the 4th of April, 1786, he set- 
'tied his depreciation pay with the auditors of Virginia, and received a cer- 
tificate for a service as captain, ending the 27th of July, 1777, at which 
time his service in the line of the army must have ended, doubtless, by re- 



Rep. No. 436. 59 

signation. On looking over the report on which the bill was founded, it 
appears that the service for which he claims commutation for a service to 
the end of the war, was, either that of aid to General Lincoln, or as a bri- 
o-ade major ; for neither of which would he be entitled to commutation. Both 
these were staff ofhces, which, as we have already seen in the case of 
Colonel R. H. Harrison, give no right in the holders to the benefit of that 
provision. Captain Claiborne did not receive land from Virginia in his 
lifetime, but. on the 14th of February, 1S07, his heirs obtained an allow- 
ance of 5,333 acres for a service of eight years. 

Lieutenant John Emerson. 

On the 30th of June, 1834, the^commutation of a lieutenant was granted 
to John Emerson, by special act of Congress, under which he received 
$1,000. 

John Emerson claimed to have been an oflicer in the thirteenth Virginia 
regiment, and to have served therein as a captain to the end of the war. 
One witness testified to his service to the end of the war. The following is 
copied from the letter of Mr. Hagner, the Third Auditor, to the chairman of 
the committee who reported the bill, dated 17tli December, 1833 : "John 
Emerson appears to have been a first lieutenant in the thirteenth Virginia 
regiment, up to April, 17/8; after which time his name is not found on 
any rolls of that regiment, or any other record in this oflice."' His name 
is not found on any of the arrangements of ihe Virginia line, nor on the list 
of officers entitled to specie pay in 1782 and 1783, nor on " the officer's book;" 
nor does he appear to have received any certificate for his depreciation pay 
from Virginia. Tlie witness who testified to his service to the end of the 
war must have been mistaken. It is utterly incredible he could have thus 
served, and no trace of his name be found on any of the revolutionary 
records we have mentioned. It is worthy of remark, that Emerson, in his 
declaration for a pension under the act of 1828, made before he applied 
for commutation, testified, that after the close of the war he received a 
commutation certificate in satisfliction of his claim for five years' full pay; 
which fact thus stated, is, probably, just as true as the other important fiict 
stated in connexion with it — that he became entitled to such certificate by 
a service to the end of the war. 

He received no land warrant from Virginia until the 10th of June, 1820, 
when a warrant issued to him for 2,006 acTes, for a service to the end of 
the war ; and on the 9th May, 1834, an additional allowance of 706 acres, 
for a service of over six years, was made ; and in December, 1835, John 
H. Smith reports him entitled to a further additional allowance for a still 
longer service. 

On the 13th of May, 1838, the Committee on Revolutionary Claims of 
the House of Representatives reported a bill, allowing the representatives of 
Lieutenant Emerson interest, according to the principles of the funding acts, 
on his commutation pay ; which bill remained unacted on at the close ot 
the session. The interest is rather more than double the amount of the 
principal. 

Lieutenant Thomas Wallace. 

June 30, 1834, an act was passed granting the commutation of five 
years' full pay as a lieutenant, to the heirs of Thomas Wallace, and there 
wa^ paid them the sum of ^1,000. 



60 Rep. No. 436. 

The evidence before the committee appears to have been his commission 
in the 8th Virginia regiment, dated the 23d of November, 1779 ; and it ap- 
pearing by an original letter from the colonel of his regiment, dated the 
19th of November, 1781, that he was under marching orders to join the 
southern army, and that he had received land bounty from Virginia for a 
service of three years, the committee concluded he had served to the end of 
the war, or become supernumerary ; and therefore reported the bill. 

The name of Thomas Wallace is found on the Chesterfield arrangement, 
as an ensign, and afterwards as lieutenant, in the Sth regiment ; but his 
name is not among the officers belonging to the line, in either of the subse- 
quent arrangements. But, in the arrangement made at Cumberland court- 
house, in May, 1782, against the name of Lieutenant Thomas Sears, under 
the head of " remarks," is this entry, " Wallace's resignation ;" indicating 
that Lieutenant Sears had been appointed to fill the vacancy occasioned by 
the resignation of Wallace. The name of Lieutenant ThomasWallace is also 
found -on the list of officers resii^ned, made at Cumberland courthouse, 
September 2, 1782. The date of the commission of Thomas Wallace, as 
€nsign, appearing by the Chesterfield arrangement to be the 2d of .lune, 
1779, that may be taken as the time of his entering the service ; and it ap- 
pearing from the Cumberland arrangement that his vacancy was filled by 
the appointment of Lieutenant Sears on the 5th day of May, 1782, that 
may be considered as the date of his resignation. Having been in service 
less than three years, he would not be entitled to land from Virginia, and 
does not appear to have received it until the 22d of October, 1790, when a 
warrant issued to him for a service of three years. 

It may be mentioned, as showing the harmony of the several ancient 
records with each other, as well as a confirmation of their general accu- 
racy, that the name of Lieutenant Wallace, who has been shown by the 
Cumberland arrangement to have left the service, by resignation, on the 5th 
of May, 1782, is found on the list of officers to whom the three months' 
specie pay was due in 1782, and the four months' in 1783, as entitled to 
the pay in 1782, but as not entitled to that in 1783. 

Captain William Royal. 

An act passed granting the'five years' full pay of a captain to the heirs 
of William Royal, on the 30th of June, 1834; under which, $2,400 has 
been paid from the Treasury. 

The testimony in this case was wholly parol. One witness says, that 
William Royal was a captain in the 2d Virginia regiment (continental line) 
in 1776, " and he believes most of the war — perhaps the whole war ; but of 
this he is not certain." Another witness says that William Royal was 
^'a captain in the revolutionary army of the United States in service about 
1777 or 1778, [what line not mentioned,] and that he continued in service 
until the end of the war." And another, that Captain Royal, about 1781, 
was appointed captain of a volunteer troop of horse, with which he joined 
the army during the invasion of Virginia. On this testimony it may be 
observed, that the service mentioned by the last witness was evidently in 
the militia ; and that, for aught that is said by the second witness, the ser- 
vice he mentions might also have been in the militia. Only the first wit- 
ness positively places Captain Royal in the continental line, and he only 
during the year 1776. This testimony, uncorroborated by other circum- 



Rep. No. 436. 61 

stances, is clearly insuflicient to establish a claim to a lav^e amount, and 
which, had it been due, might easily have been obtained fifty years before. 
But the negative evidence against the claim seems entirely conclusive*. 
The name of Captain Royal is not found on either of the six arrangement^ 
of the Virginia line, made at different periods durino- the war, and purport- 
ing to give a hst of all the officers ; nor on the list of officers to whom spe- 
cie pay was due in 1782 and 17S3 ; nor on '< the officer's bojDk." Nor did 
he receive any depreciation pay from Virginia, under the act of November 
session, 1781 ; ahhough, if he served in ^he continental line from 1776 to 
the close of the war, as he is claimed to have done, he would have been 
entitled to that pay for five years, amounting to not less than nineteen hun- 
dred or two thousand dollars. This, if it had been due him, he could 
easily have obtained ; and when it is considered that he omitted to claim 
it, and also his commutation pay, at the close of the war, and that his 
name is not found as an officer on any revolutionary documents, either at 
Richmond or Washington, the conclusion seems irresistible that he could 
not have been an officer serving to the close of the war in the continental 
line. Nevertheless, his heirs not only received his commutation pay by the 
special act before mentioned, but, on the 21st of January, 1815, there was 
allowed them, by Virginia, the quantity of 4,8S9 acres of land for a service 
of seven years and four months. 

Lieutejiant Robert Jouett. 

On the 20th of May, 1836, an act was passed granting commutation pay 
to the representative of Lieutenant Robert Jouett, of the Viro-inia line and 
the amount (i$l,600) has been paid from the Treasury. "^ ' 

The bill originated in the Senate, and the report states it to have been 
clearly proved that Jouett was a lieutenant of the Virginia line; that he 
served long and well, and became supernumerary when'the southern army 
was discharged near Charleston, in May, 1782. 

It further appeared that, in 1792, Jouett made a settlement with the ac- 
countant of the War Department, and received his pay as lieutenant up to 
the 10th of May, 1782, without claiming commutation. Notwithstandino- 
the irresistible presumption against the^ claim, arising from this fact, the 
committee deemed the presumption against his having resigned as 'still 
stronger, and reported the bill which became a law, as before stated. 

The name of Robert Jouett is found as an ensign on the arrangement of 
September, 1778, and as a lieutenant on those of March, 1779, and Febru- 
ary, 1781 ; but it is not found on the succeeding arrangements of May 
1782, or of January, 17S3. Tt is found, however, on the Cumberland list 
of resignations of tlie 2d of September, 1782; and he doubtless resigned on 
the 10th of May, 1782, the day to which he claimed and received payment 
for his services. 

Robert Jouett, having been in service more than three years, was entitled 
to bounty land from Virginia; which he received on the 2d of March, 1784 

Ensign Thornton Taylor. 

July 2, 1836, an act passed granting commutation pay to the 'representa- 
tive of Ensign Thornton Taylor. Amount paid under the act, $1,200. 

There was parol evidence that Taylor was an officer of the Virginia line, 
and served to the end of the war. There is found on file a certificate of 



€2 Rep. No. 436. 

the auditor of Virginia, showino- that on the I9th of May, 1783, Thornton 
Taylor was paid by Virginia for his services as follows, viz: "For his pay 
as ensign, from the IStli of JWay, 1777, to the 2Sth of November following; 
for his pay as lieutenant, from the 28th of November, 1777, to the \Wi of 
September. 1778; for his pay as conductor of military stores, from the 10th 
of April, 1779, to the 15th of April, 1780.'" His services, therefore, as an 
officer of the line, ended the 12th of September, 1778. At the arrangement 
at White Plains, begun on the Wth of ISeptemher, 1778, Lieutenant Thorn- 
ton Taylor is entered as a supernumerary, and to his name is appended a, 
note, as follows: "A sickly youth, not of sufficient constitution to support 
the fatigues of an officer." Lieutenant Taylor is also among the supernu- 
merary officers in the arrangement as confirmed at Middlebrook in March 
following, but his name is not found on any of the subsequent arrangements. 
On the 29th of May, 1784, Thornton Taylor petitioned the Virginia Assem- 
bly for bounty land; in which petition, as appears by the journal of the 
House of Delegates, lie states liis services as follows, viz: "That, in May, 
1777, he was appointed an ensign in the 3d Virginia regiment, and contin- 
ued in service until an arrangement took place iti the army in the year 1778, 
by which he became a supernumerary; that he has acted in the capacity 
of a conductor of military stores, and as a deputy field commissary <reneral 
of the same, until the surrender of Charleston," May 12, 1780. The only 
service which fie performed, that was of such a character as would have 
entitled him to commutation, provided it had been continued to the end of 
the war, was that in thelnie of the army, ending in September, 1778. But 
his service in the staff ended in May, 1780, several months before the pas- 
sage of the half-pay resolutions: and there is not even a pretence that he 
could be entitled to commutation. He was not entitled to bounty land from 
Virginia, by virtue of tlie general resolutions of that State, but he was allow- 
ed land by special resolution of the House of Delegates, at the May session, 
1784, in answer to the petition before mentioned. 

Ensign John Spitfatkom. * 

On the r2th of June, 1838, a bill became a law, granting to John Spit- 
fathom the commutation of five years' full pay of an ensign — $1,200. 

The bill originated m the Senate, and the material part of the report is as 
follows, viz : 

"That the memorialist was early and long in the military service of his 
country, and tfiat he was promoted to an ensigncy on or about the 17th of 
December, 1780, is very satisfactorily proved; and as to the question 
whether he served till the end of the war, the evidence stands thus : It ap- 
pears from a certificate of the auditor of public accounts in Virginia, that 
the memorialist's account for pay was settled in June, 1784, and that he re- 
ceived a certificate for his pay, tor services as an ensign, from the 17th De- 
cember, 1780, to the 12th of May, 1781, and no longer ; and the memorial- 
ist avers, and verifies the averment by his oath, that he served to the end of 
the war. The inference from the certificate of the auditor of Virginia is, 
that the memorialist did not remain in actual service in the field longer than 
until May, 1781 ; but it does not follow that he resigned his commission, 
since lie might have retired, as many other officers are known to have done, 
as a supernumerary; and as he could have had little or no motive to re- 
sign, and there is no evidence that he did so, his own affidavit that he served 



Rep. No. 436. 63 

to the end of the war is regarded as sufficient evidence that he continued 
to hold his commission, ready to serve if required, though he was a super- 
numerary." 

Notwithstanding this beautiful theory of the Senate's committee, and in 
spite of the " little or no motive " he had to do so, John Spitfathom did have 
the hardihood to resign at the time to wliich he received his pay, as now 
very satisfactorily appears. The name of John Spitfathom, as an ensign 
commissioned December 17, 1780, appears on the arrangement made at 
Chesterfield in February, 1781, but does not appear on any subsequent 
arrangement or list of officers now to be found, except on a list of resigned 
and superseded officers, made at Cumberland court house September 2, 

1782, on which is found the name of Ensign John Spitfathom as having 
resigned at some time between that date and the 18th of Februaiy, 1781. 
That he resigned on the 12th May, 1781, the day to which he received his 
pay, cannot well be doubted. 

John Spitfathom did not receive land from Virginia at an early daj'-, but 
on the 6tli of July, 1809, a warrant issued to him for 2,666 acres, for a ser- 
vice of three years ; and on the 14th of Decem*ber following, another war- 
rant issued for 518 acres more, for an additional service of fourteen months ; 
making seven years and two months' service in the whole. He must, of 
course, have entered the continental army on the 12tli of March, 1774. 

Captain Daniel Duval. 

On the 13th of June, 1838, an act passed allowing to the representative 
of Daniel Duval the five years' full pay of a captain of sappers and miners 
of the continental army of the Hevolution ; under which act tlie payment 
from the Treasury was $3,000. 

There is no doubt that Daniel Duval was a captain in the corps of sap- 
pers and miners, which corps, by resolution of November 14, 17S0, was put 
on the same footing as the line of the army ; and the only question is, 
whether he served to the end of the war. A final settlement certificate 
was issued to him in March, 1784, for the balance due him for his pay in 
that corps, for the sum of $16 68, bearing interest from August 1, 1780, 
without including his commutation pay. "Captain David Bushnell, and 
several other officers of the same corps, received final settlement certificates 
about the same period, which included their commutation pay. It cannot 
be supposed that Captain Duval would have omitted to claim his commu- 
tation, or that it would have, been withheld from him, if it had been due. 
It appears from the certificate of the auditor of Virginia that Captain Duval 
Uiade a settlement with the auditors of that State on the 18th day of April, 

1783, and received pay for his services as a captain from the 2d of August, 
1779, to the 1st of March, 1781, and no longer. If Captain Duval had 
continued in the corps of sappers and miners to the end of the war, he 
would have received his depreciation pay, under this settlement, up to the 
31st of December, 1781. His failure to do so, seems very conclusive 
against the claim. 

But if there were any doubt on this point, it would be put at rest by the 
proceedings of the House of Delegates of Virginia, at an early day, in rela- 
tion to the claims of Captain Duval. At the October session of 1783, 
Daniel Duval petitioned the House of Delegates for an allowance of land 
bounty ; and on the 11th of November of that year the committee reported 
-as follows, viz : 



64 



Rep. No. 436. 



" It appears to your committee that .the said Daniel Duval was appointed 
an ensign in the continental army in Ihe beginning of the year 1776, in 
which capacity he acted until 177S, when he was appointed aid de-camp 
to Major General the Baron de Steuben ; that, in the year 1779. he was 
appointed by Congress to the command of a company of sappers and 
miners, in which capacity he acted till the year 1781, when, being in Vir- 
ginia at the time of the invasion by Lord Cornwallis, he was appointed first 
a major, and then a lieutenant colonel of the mihtia ; in which respective 
ranks he acted until the surrender of Lord Cornwallis. 

" Resolved^ That the petition of the said Daniel Duval, praying that he 
may be allowed the same bounty in lands as is by law' given to a captain 
of the Virginia line on continental establishment, is reasonable." 

If Captain Duval had served to the end of the war in the continental 
line, there would have been no necessity for petitioning the House of Dele- 
gates for the bounty, because t!ie general law would have extended to his 
case. There is no intimation in the report that he was considered in ser- 
vice of any kind after the. surrender of Cornwallis; and his service in the 
capacity of captahi of sappers and miners is stated to have terminated in 
1781, about the time of the invasion of the State by Cornwallis— that is, 
ill the spring of that year. The commutation pay, then, has been improp- 
perly allowed him. 

Captain Charles Stiead, {superseded.) 

On the 17th of July, 1838, an act was passed granting to the represent- 
atives of Charles Snead the commutation of five years' full pay of a cap- 
lain of the revolutionary army, which has been paid at the Treasury, 
being $2,400. 

The evidence before the committee was, that Charles Snead's heirs had 
received bounty land from Virginia for seven years' service in the con- 
tmental armv, and that he had" been paid by that State, under the act of 
ISovember, 1781, for services as captain up to the 31st of December, 1781. 
" Also (the report says) an extract of the Chesterfield arrangement oHhe 
Virginia continental line, made under the resolve of October 21, 1780, 
cerUfied by the auditor of Virginia, from which it appears that Captain 
Charles Snead became a supmnuuierary by the arrangement then and 
there made." This latter fact seems to be conclusive in favor of the claim. 
The misfortune is, the Chesterfield arrangement showed no such thing. 
The extract from it was as follows : 

" Chesterfield arrangement of the Virginia line, the lOth of February^ 

1781. 



No. 


Names. 


Former 
regiment. 


Present 
regiment. 


Dale of com- 
inission. 


Whose 
vacancy. 


Remarks. 


46 


Charles Snead 


9 


5 


May 10, 1779 


Gilchrist's 
promotion. 


Sup. 



« Extract from the Chesterfield arrangement of the Virs^inia line. 

«' J AS. E. HEATH, Aiidiior:[ 
" Auditor's Office, December 24, 1833." 



Rep. No. 436. 65 

On looking at the Chesterfield arrangement, it will be found that Charles 
Snead, instead of being a supernumerary officer, was retained in service 
at that arrangement. The Chesterfield arrang-ement contains a list of 
supernumerary officers, among which Snead's name is not lound; but it 
does appear on the rank- roll of captains, (No. 46, from which the extract 
is made,) and also on the roll of the 5th regiment, as one of the retained 
officers. On the Cumberland arrangement in May, 1782, his name is not 
found on the list of officers retained in service; but against the name of 
Philip Sansom, a captain of the first regiment, under the head of " remarks," 
is the entry, " Snead superseded." Snead's name is also found as a super- 
seded officer in the Cumberland court-house list of September 2, 1782. 
Clearly, then, the abbreviation " sup.''^ on the margin of the Chesterfield 
arrangement, as shown* by the foregoing extract, was inserted after the 
period of that arrangem.ent, and signifies siipersedtd instead of super- 
numerary. The term "superseded" had a definite and well understood 
meaning in the revolutionary army. It was applied to officers who, at 
any of the several arrangements of the army, were left off from the roll of 
their regiment in consequence of their long absence from the service with- 
out leave, and their neglect to claim their places in the line at such arrange- 
ment. Thus, at the Chesterfield arrangement, a number of officers were 
superseded by the appointment of others in their places ; and several other 
officers, whose neglect of their duty was less marked and decided, were or- 
dered to be superseded at a future day, unless they obtained a favorable 
decision of a court of inquiry on tiieir conduct, before the day fixed for their 
being superseded. The following extract is from the proceedings of the 
board of arrangement of September 23, 1779: "The board beg leave to 
report that Captain Isaac Israel, of the 4th regiment, has been absent about 
sixteen months; that he has been repeatedly called upon to join his regi- 
ment, without effect; that he had offered to resign at different times, and 
there was reason to believe he did not consider himself in the line." Cap- 
tain Israel was accordingly superseded at this arrangement. If, therefore, 
an officer was superseded, he was out of service as much as if he had re- 
signed ; and, moreover, he was out of service with some degree of censure 
resting upon him. Consequently, the representatives of Snead could not 
be entitled to commutation. 

No blame is imputed to the auditor of Virginia, who is doubtless an up- 
right and valuable officer; nor to the committee, who, from the extract, 
were justified in the belief that Snead was a supernumerary. It is, how- 
ever, a remarkable fact, that, in this, the only instance in which this impor- 
tant arrangement has been invoked by committees of either House of Con- 
gress, it should have been made to give a false response — that it should 
have been used to prove an officer entitled to commutation, when it furnish- 
ed conclusive evidence to the contrary. 

Captain Snead had been in service more than three years ; but he was 
not entitled to bounty land from Virginia, because the law of that State 
forbade its allowance to an officer who had been "superseded." This must 
have been well known to Captain Snead, who does not appear to have ap- 
plied for land in his lifetime ; but, in 1823, his heirs applied, and obtained 
an allowance for a service of seven years, being 4,666 acres. 
5 



66 Rep. No. 436. 

Lieutenant Timothy Feely, 

July 7, 1838, an act passed granting the commutation pay ($1,600) to 
the representatives of Lieutenant Timothy Feely. 

It appeared to the committee who reported the bill that Feely was ap- 
pointed an ensign in the llih Viroiuia regiment December 10, 1776, and 
promoted to a lieutenancy on the 6th of November, 1777, and that he was 
paid his depreciation p;iy by Virginia up to Deceajber 31, 1781. From 
this evidence the committee think " he was clearly entitled to his commu- 
tation, unless he forfeited it by resigning his commission, or by being ex- 
pelled the service, of which there is no ground of suspicion whatever." 

Notwithstanding the absence of any suspicion that Timothy Feely could 
have left the service before the close of the war, it now satisfactorily ap- 
pears he did so. His name is found on the arrangement of February, 1781, 
as then in service, and also on the previous arrangeujents of September, 
1778, and of March, 1779 ; but it is not found on the Cumberland court- 
house arrangement of May, 1782; nor on the Winchester arrangement of 
January, 1783; nor on the list of officers to whom specie pay was due in 
1782 and 1783 ; nor on the officer's book ; but it is found on the Cumber- 
land list of resigned and superseded officers of September 2, 1782. He left 
the service between February, 17S1, and May, 1782. 

Lieutenant Feely was entitled to land from Virginia for three years' ser- 
vice, which he received July 29, 1786. 

T"he case of Timothy Feely completes the list of all the commutation 
acts (29 in number) which have been passed in favor of officers or their 
representatives for services claimed to have been perlbrmed in the Virginia 
line, not one of which, it will liave been perceived, is, in the opinion of the 
committee, well founded. 

The space which has already been occupied in this examination will 
prevent the committee from going into a detailed examination of the cases 
now pending, which have heretolore been received with favor by the House, 
but wfiich now very clearly appear to be unfounded. The committee will, 
however, mention some of these cases, in most of which bills have hereto- 
fore passed one of the two Houses, and been lost in the other, usually for 
want of being reached on the calendar of business. 

James Broadns. — He served at; ensign from October 2, 1779, to Decem- 
ber 2, 1780, and then left the service, (two months before the Chesterfield 
arrangement,) and could not be entitled to commutation. 

John Barns. — He was a lieutenant in the 7th Virginia regiment, and 
was superseded at the Cumberland arrangement in May, 1782. 

Jarnis Hackhy.- -His name is not on any document, either at Richmond 
or Washington, as an officer in the continental line for any period. Never- 
theless, he was allowed the land bounty of a lieutenant (2,666 acres) on the 
30th July, 1835. 

Captain Sarnnel Jones. — He appears to have left the service on the 1st 
of February, 1781, (before the Chesterfield arrangement,) and could not be 
entitled to commutation. 

Captain. Nathan Lam.m.e. — He resigned between February, 1781, and 
May, 1782, as appears by the Cumberland list of September 2, 1782. 

John McDowell. — He was a lieutenant in the 8lh Virginia regiment, and 
resigned on the I6th of February, 1781. 



Rep. No. 436. (j7 

t^imon Summers. — On the 14th of November, 1783, he presented his ac- 
count to the auditors oJ Virginia, niider the depreciation act, and was allowed 
pay for his services as an adjutant from the 1st of January, 1777, to the Kith 
of February, 1781. In [lis account which he presented, lie is described only 
as an adjutant; but in the registry of his allowance he is also designated as 
a lieutenant. As his name is not found on any of the arrans^ements as a 
lieutenant, it is not probable he belonged to the line. But, whether he did 
or not, he could have no just claim to commutation pay, as he left the service 
the lOth of February; 1781 — before the arrangement under the resolution of 
October 21, 178U; in wbicli arrangement his name is not mentioned, eiilier 
as a supernumerary or in any other character; nor is it mentioned on any 
other arrangement. It appears, from original papers on file in his case, that, 
in the summer of 17S1, he was an assistant quartermaster, under Colonel 
Hendricks, in the State service, having some charge of the transportation of 
warlike stores; which service, had it been under Congress, would not aid 
his claim to commutation — being service in the staff department, and not in 
the line. In 1784 he presented his petition to the Virginia House of Dele- 
gates, asking for half pay. not for a service to the end of the war, but be- 
cause, as he expresses it in his petition, " he was engaged /or a considera- 
ble time, in the service of his country as an adjutant, during which he 
contracted a violent dysentery.'' It was, then, strongly for his interest to 
claim tor a service to the end of the war, or to have been a supernumerary. 
As he made no such claim, the conclusion is irresistible that it could not 
justly be made. 

Jo/ill Towns. — He was a lieutenant in the 6th regiment, and resigned 
March 12, 1782. 

William Vaitse was a captain in the 8tli regiment, and was superseded 
at the Chesterfield arrangement, February, 1781. 

John. Winston., Tarfdf^y WldU^ and John Marks left the service during 
the sitting of the board of arrangement, at Chesterfield, in the month of 
February, 1781. doubtless by resignation— Winston on the 13th, and White 
and Marks on the lolh of February. 

Thomas Wiyhnrt. — His claim to commutation was made in 1793, and 
then fully considered by the proper authorities, and rejected. (See resolu- 
tions, (fcc, relative to revolutionary claims, published by order of the 
House of Representatives, in 1838, page 143.) Nevertheless, the commit- 
tee made a fiworable report in the case in J 838. It now appears, from 
papers attached to the arrangement made at White Plains, in September, 
1778, that at the time of that arrangement he was ab.sent in Virginia 
without leave; and by the journal of the Virginia House of Delegates, of 
November 10, 1789, that he resigned his commission on the 1st of August, 
1779. 

The cases of Colonel Franclx Taylor, Lieutenant Colonel Wm. Foun- 
iaine, Captains James Barton, Garland Burnley, and James Purvis, and 
Lieutenant Samuel O. Pettus, who did not belong to the continental 
line, but were officers in the volunteer regiment of convention guards, have 
all received favorable reports from commiitees, and several of them have 
passed the House of Representatives. 

There are numerous other claims which, from time to time, have re- 
ceived the fiivorable action of committees of one or the other of the two 
Houses, and are now pending; which, tested by the documentary evidence 



68 Rep. No. 436. 

now brought to the attention of the House, will be found to be clearly un- 
founded. , n ■, , 

In most of the cases which have been heretofore examined, the persons 
for whose services the claims were made, were, at some period of the Revo- 
lution, officers in the continental army. But the spirit of specnlaiion and 
adventure has gone beyond the pale of the army, and sought out subjects 
for these claims, who never had any connexion with a continental com- 
mission. Of thi's class of claims, and the manner in which they progress 
from small beginnings to important results, a sample may be found in the 
case of 

William Madison. 

The name of William Madison is not found as a continental officer on 
any of the rolls or settlements, cither of Virginia or the United Slates ; and 
he had lived for fifty years after the close of the war without making any 
claim on either for pay or bounty lands. He produced no commission, and 
does not say he ever had any. On the 7th of August, 183.5, he for ihe first 
time applied for the benefit of the act of May 15, 1828 ; but his clann was 
rejected. In July, 1836, he was admitted a pensioner under the act of 1832, 
for services, as follows : • i v - 

For four months and fifteen days' service as a private in the militia 
cavalry ------- $1^ T^ 

For two months and nineteen days' service as lieutenant - 43 88 

The amount of his pension being, per annum - - ^2 63 

On the 6th of January, 1838, he obtained a land warrant from the Exe- 
cutive of Virginia for 2.'666 acres, for services as a lieutenant of artillery 
in the contmental line to the end oi the war. The only evidence on which 
the warrant issued was that of Robeit Taylor and George Clorbin. Robert 
Taylor testified he saw William Madison in service at the siege ot York; 
hut iie did not pretend to know any thmg of the rank or the liiic to which 
he belonged. George Corhin, to whose character nobody certifies, states 
himself To have been a private in the militia at the siege of York, and to 
have seen William Madison in service there, as a lientevant in Colonel 
Harrison's regiment of continental artillery. The witness mentions cir- 
cumstances which makes him certain he saw William Madison at that siege; 
but he omits to tell how he became possessed of the important information 
that he held a commission in the continental army. This was, at the best, 
but njaiter of opinion, and which was very probably formed at the time of 
givmcr the affidavit, in 1835. On this evidence, attempted to be bolstered 
by the claimant's own affidavit, and the certificate of the Madison county 
court, the land warrant was granted. ,„,.„. ,, ,- . 

On the 14th of February, 1838, the petition of William Madison for 
©ommutation was presented to the House of Representatives ; and, on the 
evidence before recited, and a certificate from Virginia that he had been 
allowed the State bounty land, the Committee on Revolutionary Claims on 
the 26ih of March reported a bill granting him five years' full pay, with 
. interest computed on the principles of the funding act. Three days after 
the bill was reported, and before the papers could be printed, copies, certi- 
fied by the Clerk of the House, of this favorable report, together with the 



Rep. No. 436. 69 

evidence on which it was made, were taken to the War Department, and a 
claim made for United States bounty land. The cleric of the Bounty Land 
Office declined oranting it, and an appeal was taken to the Secretary of 
War. The acting Secretary (tlie Secretary himself being sick) directed a 
bounty-land warrant to be issued ; which was accordingly done on the 29th 
of March, 183S. The decision of the acting Secretary of War, that Wil- 
liam Madison was entitled to bounty land for a service to the end of the 
war, being certified to the Commissioner of Pensions, he was, on the next 
day, admitted to the benefit of the act of May 1.5, 1828. 

The amount received by William Madison from these allowarfces is as 
follows: 

Under the act of May 15, 1828 - - - -$5,400 00 

2,066f acres of Virginia land, supposing scrip to have issued 

at$l 25 - 3,333 33 

200 acres United States bounty-land scrip ... 250 00 



Making - - $8,983 33 

To which should be added the amount of commutation pay and interest, as 
proposed by the bill, $6,018; making ,$15,001 33, which William Madison 
would have received, had the bill as reported become a law ; and all for at 
most two months and nineteen days' service, and that proved by the single 
testimony of a private in the militia, of whose character or standing no in- 
formation is given. 

The bill for the relief of Williiim Madison was, on debate, rejected in the 
House without a division. 

But the modern hunters after commutation pay have not confined their 
efforts to single cases. They have attempted to bring in new claimants, 
not only by regiments, as in the case of the convention guards, but by 
classes of officers extending throughout the whole army. Thus, not only 
staff officers, as has been heretofore mentioned, but the class of surgeons' 
mates, to whom commutation pay was never promised, and who were early 
and uniformly decided by the board of war and the old Congress not to be 
entitled, have come forward with their claims lor five years' full pay, and 
their title has been allowed. The number ol claimants which belong to this 
class cannot be now known. Already several have been allowed, and many 
more are pending. 

II, in reference to claims for commutation. Congress is to continue as it 
has done for a few years past, allowing vague surmises and presumptions 
to set aside the judgments and opinions of the men of the Revolution, and to 
overthrow the records with which they have furmshedus — if Congress is to go 
on enlarging the basis of right to commutation, by taking in new regiments 
and new classes of officers, the committee cannot look forward to a period 
when the adjustment of these claims is to be brought to a close, or conceive 
of a limit to the amount of money which will be drawn from the Treasury. 
In the whole course of the examination which the committee have made, 
they have not found a single claim which, in their opinion, would have been 
allowed by the accoimting otficers under the Confederation, or those who 
adjusted the claims under the act of March 27, 1792; or which, in the 
opinion of the committee, ought to be allowed. Such cases may have been 
presented to Congress ; but, it so, tliey must have been extremely rare. So 
far as tlie examination of the committee has gone, they are all emphatically 



70 Rep. No. 436. 

modern claims, which, at the proper time of presentinof them, were never 
dreamed of by the persons for whose services they are made ; and claims 
which never wonld have been presented to a tribunal possessing the rolls 
and records of the Revolutionj and having an intimate knowledge of the 
service of that period. 

The committee having now completed the report of the result of their 
examination "into the character and amount of proof which is required by 
existing laws and regulations to establisli" Virginia boinity land and com- 
mutation claims against the Utiited States, it now only remains for them to 
execute the other branch of their instructions, which is, " to inquire wheth- 
er any, and what, further legislative measures be necessary in regard to the 
mode of adjusting and allowing such claims." 

And.^r.v^, as to what legislative measures may be necessary in reference 
to bounty land claims. 

The existing laws contain no provision authorizing the satisfaction of 
Virginia land warrants by the United States, except that the remnant of 
the reservation between the Scioto and Little Miami, northwest of the Ohio, 
is still open to the satisfaction of warrants granted for services in the conti- 
nental line ; and by act of July, 1838, will continue open for such locations 
until August 10, 1840. The land remainino' unlocated of this reservation, 
was estimated on the 2d of February, 1839, at 208,737 acres. (Sc^e ap- 
pendix No. 2.) Doubtless, a considerahle portion of it has since been lo- 
cated ; and considering that its probiible value would not pay the expense 
of reclaiujing and putting it in market, and that by omit'.ing to do so all 
occasion for complaint will be avoided, the committee are disposed to aban- 
don It to the claimants which Virginia has recognised. Tliey, therefore, 
propose no change in the existing law on the subject of this reservation. 

Hut as this reservation, if it should all be taken up, will be insnliicient to 
satisfy existing conlinenlul warrants, leaving all tlie ^State warrants unpro- 
vided for, the important question arises, whetlier an additional appropria- 
tion of land, or its equivalent in scrip or money, ought to be made for their 
satisfaction. 

Entertaining the opinion which the committee do, and which they have 
hereinbefore expressed, that the great mass of the warrants now unsatisfied 
have been improvidently issued, it cannot be expected that they would re- 
commend their indiscriminate satisfaction. But, on the supposition that a 
portion of them may possibly have been granted for services really perform- 
ed in conformity with the laws of Virginia, the question arises, whether 
some tribunal ought not to be instituted by this Government to re-examine 
them, in order that such claims as may appear just may be satisfied by the 
United States. 

It is obvious that the determination of this question may involve another, 
viz: whether there was any original obligation, on the part of this Govern- 
ment, to make provision for satisfying the bounty land claims of the i^tate 
troops of Virginia, or of the contimnital troops, by other means than the 
Ohio reservation? If such obligation existed, and be still subsisting, there 
would be a necessity of providing means for ascertaining and discharging 
the good claims, however troublesome and expensive might be their adjust- 
ment. 

This brings the committee to an examination of the grounds on which 
the appropriations of land scrip have heretofore been made by the United 
States, and on which still further appropriations are urged upon Congress. 



Rep. No. 436. 71 

As regards the warrants for services in the State line, these grounds are 

two : 

1st. An alleged mistake in the deed of cession. 

2d. An alleoed interference by the United States, at an early day, by 
which the holders of State line warrants were prevented from locating 
them in Kentucky. 

The only argument which appears from the published debates to have 
been made in favor of the first appropriation of scrip to satisfy Virginia 
State line warrants in May, 1830, is contained in the speech of a distin- 
guished Senator from Virginia, (Mr. Tyler,) which will be found in Gales 
<fc Seaton's Debates for fs29 and 1830, page 421.^ In that speech the 
claim of Virginia (o have her State line bounties paid'by the United States, 
is not put on the ground of there being any general obligation on the part 
of this Government to satisfy the promises of bounties made by the States, 
but on grounds peculiar to the claims of Viry^inia. It Wi^s said a mistake 
had occurred in the deed of cession, by which provision was omitted to be 
made for the State troops, though it was the intention of the parties to pro- 
vide for them. This alleged mistake has also been the leading argument 
in favor of all subsequent appropriations of scrip. 

The Senator, in the speech before mentioned, disclaimed all idea of ap- 
pealing to the liberality or bounty of the United States, and declared, that 
if the State troops of Virgim'a had no claim either in justice or equity on 
the United States, or (to use his language) "if, in plainer words, they were 
not entitled to obtain, provided this Government was .suable, a decree or 
judgment in a court of law or equity, for that which is now demanded for 
them, he desired that the bill might be rejected." The Senator then pro- 
ceeds to give an account of the nature and history of the Virginia State 
bounties, and to state tiis views of the mistake said to have been made in 
the deed. " That, in 1781, the General Assembly of Vircjinia passed certain 
resolutions authorizing a cession of her western territory to the United 
States, on certain conditions, among which were a reservation of the terri- 
tory between the Scioto and Little Miami, northwest of the Ohio, for the 
satisfaction of the bounties which she had promised to her troops, both State 
and continental ; that this was the power of attorney under which her dele- 
gates acted in executing the deed, and that tluy could not justly exceed the 
power conferred; that the words ^ upon their oicn Stale cstabli.shnieut,^ 
in the beforementioned resolution of the Viro;inia Assembly, in that clause 
relating to such reservation, immediately followed the words ' upon con- 
tinental establishment;' but that, in the progress of the matter through 
Congress, these important words were accidc ntally omitted, and the deed 
executed without insertino^ them." " In fact," says the Senator, "the jour- 
nals of Coufjress of 1783 show how the mistake orig-inated. A committee 
was appointed to consider of the terms of cession, and to report tliereon ; 
and they undertook, in their report, to set forth, in the very words of each, 
the various conditions on which Virginia had proposed to make the cession. 
The fifth condition was that appertaining to this subject; and in the recital 
of that, the error was committed, which ran into the deed afterwards. The 
committee had the resolution of the General Assembly before them, and it 
is not to be credited for a moment that they intentionally recited falsely its 
terms. It is much more creditable and just towards the committee to ascribe 
the omission to a mere oversight. If he was right in this, it followed that 



72 Rep. No. 436. 

the State troops had a full rig[it to enter upon the reserved lands northwest 
of the river Ohio, in order to locate their warrants." 

Upon this statement of fact and aro;ument a few remarks will be made. 
Aud, ni tile first place, it may be observed, that, whatever language in reference 
to the State troops the original resohition of Virginia might contain, no prop- 
osition for satisfying their bounties was ever made by Virginia to Congress; 
and, of course, no omission in transcribing, either designed or accidental, 
could have been made in that body, by its committees or otherwise. The 
resolution of Virginia, referred to by the Senator, was passed on the 2d of 
January, 1781 ; and the identical official copy of the resolniion which was 
first transmitted to Congress, and on which that body acted, duly certified 
by John Beckley, clenk of the House of Delegates, with the original auto- 
graph letter of Governor Jefferson, of the 17th of January, 1781, transmit- 
ting it, is now to be found in the State Department of this Government. 
(See manuscript papers of the old Congress, No. 71, vol. 2.) The ccpy of 
the resolution, which is in a neat plain hand, without blot or erasure, con- 
tains no reservation for the troops of the Slate line, but is, so far as it relates 
to the Ohio reservation, precisely in the words of that clause, afterwards 
inserted in the deed of cession. The mistake, then, if any, was made by 
Virginia herself, in not making any proposition to Congress for the satis- 
faction of her State bounties. Wluiiever might have been her intentions 
on the subject, it cannot well be pretended that such mistake on her part 
can imf)ose on this Government, which was kept in ignorance of such in- 
tentions, any obligation which would be enforced in a court of law or 
equity; for it will readily be seen that such court could not ascertain 
whether, if the proposition had been made, it would have been either accept- 
ed by Congress or insisted on by Virginia. 

FJut, although there could be no loo^al or equitable obligation on the part 
of this Government to indemnify Virginia against the consequences of her 
own mistakes, still, if the proposition to provide for the State line was in- 
tended to be made by Virginia; if, in reasonable probability, it Avould have 
been accepted I)y Congress ; if it was im))ortant to Virginia to insist upon 
it, and if she had no fair opportunity of correcting the mistake, such mis- 
take miiiht perhaps not improperly form the basis of an appeal to the gene- 
rosity of Congress. It may not, tlierefore, he deemed wiiolly unimportant 
to examine a little further into the history of this act of cession. 

Without going into a tedious history of the proceedings in Congress on 
the propositions of cession contained in the resolutions of Virginia, it may 
be sufficient to say that the resolutions were received by Congress and re- 
ferred to a committee on the 31st of January, 1781 ; that such committee 
having made report on the same, they were again recommitted to another^ 
committee, who, on the 3d of November, 1781, submitted a report, (see 
Journals of May 1, 1782.) which was discussed from time to time, under 
various raoiions and propositions, until the 13th of September, 1783 — a 
period of more than two years and a half from the time of their original 
presentation to Congress ; when, on the report of another committee, to 
which the resolutions had been again referred, and of which committee Mr. 
Madison of Virginia was a member. Congress came to certain resolutions, 
by which they agreed to accept the cession of Virginia, with sundry pro- 
posed alter;itions and amendments in the terms thereof — the clause relating 
to the reservation northwest of the Ohio remaining precisely as had been 
proposed to Congress by Virginia, applicable only to the troops of the con- 



Rep. No. 436. 73 

tinental line. Can it be possible that, at no time during the progress of this 
thorouo-h discussion of the claims and pretensions of Virginia— in which 
discussion the delegates from that State must have largely participated— and 
at no time during die scrutinizing examination of tlie Virginia resolutions 
by committees, this omission, now deemed so very important, should 
have been brouijht to the notice of the Virginia delegates? To suppose 
such a thing possible, is to ascribe to the delegates from Virginia of that 
day an inattention to, and neglect of, her interests, of which (he Senators 
and Representatives from that State at the present time have never been 
suspected, and with which such men as Mr. Madison, Mr. Jones, Mr. IBIand, 
Mr. Kdmund Randolph, Mr. Arthur Lee, and Mr. John Fenton Mercer, 
who were among the delegates of that period, have, never, it is believed, 
been seriously charged. 

But these resolutions, adopted by Congress on the 13th of September, 
1783, as the terms on which a cession of the western territory would be ac- 
cepted by Consrress, were transmitted to Virginia; and, being presented to 
the House of Delegates, underwent a discussion in that body ; and, being 
approved by both Houses, a law was passed authorizing the delegates of 
Virginia in Congress— not on the terms proposed by Virginia in her resolu- 
tioirs of January, 17S1, but on the terms of said resolutions of Congress of 
the 13th of September, 1783- to execute to the United States a deed of ces- 
sion of said territory. 

From the preamble to this act of cession of Virginia, the following extract 
is made: " And whereas the United States in Congress assembled have, by 
their act of the I3th of September last, stipulated die terms on which they 
agree to accept the cession of this State, should the Legislature approve 
thereof; which ienns, alihoiiiih they do not come fully up to the jjru/wsi- 
iiotis of this CoimnoHweuUh. are conceived, on the whole, to -approach so 
nearly to them as to induce this State to accept thereof," (fcc. The act then 
proceeds to recite the terms proposed by Congress in the words of their re- 
solutions, copying at full length the clause in reference to the reservation 
in Ohio, and making it applicable to the bounties to the continental line 
only. This act of Virginia, of the October session of 17.83, (and not, as had 
been supposed by the beforementioned Senator from Virginia, the resolu- 
tions of January, 1781,) was the » power of attorney" under which the dele- 
gates from Virginia acted in executing the deed. That this was their au- 
thority, is shown by the deed itself; which copies the words of the act at 
lengili, and declares it to be by virtue of the authority of that act that the 
deed was executed. (For copy of deed of cession see appendix No. 12.) 

It would seem that this solemn act of Virginia (in the accomplishment of 
which a bill must have been reported by a committee, passed through all 
the forms of legislation in two distinct legislative bodies, whose constituents 
were deeply interested in securing the bounties which had been promised 
them by the State) must be taken as satisfactory evidence against any sup- 
posed mistake made nearly three years previously, or as evidence that, if 
such mistake had been made, it was for some reason or other, at the time of 
authorizing the cession, either deemed as inadmissible by Congress, or as 
not important to be insisted on by Virginia. Thus much of the sanction 
of Virginia to- the alleged mistake, which appears on the face of the deed of 
cession itself. 

But the evidence that the mistake, if there were any, made in copying the 
resolutions of January, 1781, must have been known to, and acquiesced in 



74 Rep. No. 436. 

by Virfrinia, does not end here. It has already been mentioned, that at the 
same session of the General Assembly of Virginia at which the deed of ces- 
sion was authorized, an act had passed regulating the locations of military" 
bounty land warrants on the western lands set apart for their satisfaction. 
This act had been passed on the memorial of a deputation of officers of both 
the continental and State lines, who were in attendance upon the General As- 
sembly to look after the interests of their respective lines in those lands, du- 
ring the pendency of the act of cession before the Lpgislature. The fol- 
lowing- is an extract from the journal of the House of Delegates of Decem- 
ber 1(3, 1783: 

" Resolved^ That the deputation of officers, viz : Generals Scott and Mor- 
gan, Colonels Heth and IVmple, from the continental line; and General 
Clarke, Colonel Dabney, and Captain Roane, from the State line; having 
attended the General Assembly on the business of their respective memori- 
als, be allowed the sum of two dollars per diem, respectively, and the same 
sum for every day's travelling expenses to and from this place," 

If we were (o suppose all the members of the Legislature to have been 
so iuMttentive to the claims of their constituents as to overlook the fact that 
the proposition of Congress had omitted to make provision for locating State 
line warrants on the reservation in Ohio, it would seen) altogether impossi- 
ble that the fact of such omission should have escaped the notice of the 
State line officers specially attending the Assembly in charge of the inter- 
ests of that line. 

But the committee have looked into the journal of the Virginia House of 
Delegates for the proceedings of that body in reference to the act of cession, 
and find that the clause in the resolmions of Congress of the 13th of Sep- 
tember, 1783, relative to the bounty land reservation northwest of the Ohio, 
did attract the special attention of that body, and that, on solemn consider- 
ation and debate, it was allowed to stand as proposed by Congress, without 
inserting any provision for the State troops. 

That the bearing of the proceedings of the House of Delegates may be 
fully understood, a copy of the journal, so far as it relates to the question 
under consideration, will be inserted. 

Monday^ December 9, 1783. '• The House, according to the order of the 
day, resolved itself into a committee of the Whole House on the state of the 
Commonwealth; and after some time spent tlierein, Mr. Speaker resumed 
the chair, and Mr. Nicholas reported that the committee had, according to 
order, again had the state of the Commonwealth under their consideration, 
and had come to a resolution thereupon ; which he read in his place, and 
afterwards delivered in at the Clerk's table, when the same was again twice 
read, and agreed to by the House, ns followeth : 

'■^Resolved, That the Delegates of this State to the Congress of the United 
States be instructed and fully authorized to convey, by proper instrument 
in writing on the part of this State, to the Congress of the United States, 
all right, title, and claim, which the said Commonwealth hath to the lands 
northward of the river Ohio, upon the terms contained in the act of Con- 
gress of the 13ih of September last: Provided^ That lands be reserved 
out of those hereby proposfd to be ceded, sufficient to 'make good the sever- 
al nrilitary bounties agreed to be given to sundry officers, by resolutions of 
both Houses of Assembly ; the lands hitherto reserved being insujficient 
for that purpose. 



Rep. No. 436. 75 

"Ordered, That a bill, or bills, be brought in, pursuant to the said reso- 
lution ; and that Messrs. Nicholas, Joseph Jones, Henry, WiUiatn Cabell, 
White, and Randolph, do prepare and bring in the same." 

December 15, 1783. ''Mr. Joseph Jones presented, according to order, 
a bill 'to authorize the delegates of this State in Congress to convey to the 
United States in Congress assembled the right of this Commonwealth to 
the territory northwestward of the river Ohio ;' and the same was received 
and read the first time, and ordered to he read a second time." Same day: 
«A bill 'to authorize the Delegates of this State in Congress to convey to 
the United States in Congress assembled the right of this Commonwealth 
to the territory northwestward of the river Ohio,' was read the second time, 
and ordered to be committed to a Committee of the Whole House to- 
morrow." 

December 18, 1783. "The House, according to the order of the day, 
resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole House on the bill 'to au- 
thorize the Delegates of this State in Congress to convey to the United 
States in Congress assembled the right of this Commonwealth to the terri- 
tftry north westward of the river Ohio;' and, after some time spent therein. Mr. 
Speaker resumed the chair, and Mr. Thruston reported that the committee 
had, according to order, had the said bill under consideration, and had 
gone through the same, and made several aritend,nie-nts thereto^ which he 
read in his place, and afterwards delivered in at the Clerk's table; which 
were again twice read, and agreed to by the House. 

^'■Ordered, That the bill, with the amendments, be engrossed, and read a 
third time." 

It further appears from the journal, that the bill was afterwards read a 
third time, and passed; concurred in by the Senate without further amend- 
ment ; and became a law, as before stated. 

What was the precise language of the amendments which were made to 
the bill in Committee of the VVhole, and afterwards adopted by the House, 
does not appear. It is certain, however, that one of them related to the 
proposition of Congress of the 13th of September preceding, which reserved 
Jand for military bounties ; because, by the resolution of the Committee of 
the Whole, the committee who were to bring in the bill were instructed to 
make further provision for military bounties, in consequence of the pre- 
vious provision being deemed insufficient : and as the bill, when it became 
a law, contained no such provision, the clause containing it (doubtless for 
sufficient reasons assigned in debate) must have been stricken from the bill, 
being one of the amendments noticiid in the journal. 

Whether the bill, as originally reported by the committee, contained a 
clause lor placing the State troops on the same footing, in regard to the 
Ohio reservation, as the continental, cannot now be ascertained from the 
journal. But whether it did so, or not, is immaterial to the present inquiry; 
which is, whether the authorities of Virginia had an opportunity of correct- 
ing the mistake, if there were one, in the resolutions of January, 1781? 
That they had such opportunity, is conclusively and indisputably shown 
by the fact, that the sufficiency of the provision, as proposed by Congress, 
and afterwards inserted in the deed, was a matter fully discussed in the 
House of Delegates of that State, before the making of her " power of attor- 
ney" to her delegates in Congress to execute her deed ; and on such discus- 
sion, the provision, as finally inserted in the deed, was approved and as- 
sented to. 



76 Rep. No. 436. 

A recurrence to the state of things existing- at the time of the passage of 
the act of cession by Virginia in 1783, will make it appear very plain that 
it could not, at that time, have been deemed a matter of any importance 
whether a right to locate warrants on the reservation in Ohio was reserved 
to the Slate troops or not. This will account for the fact, that no provision 
of that kind was insisted on by tlje House of Delegates. 

It will be remembered that the State of Virginia had previously set apart 
a large tract of country in Kentucky, fir the satisfaction, indiscriminately, 
of the bounties to the troops of the two lines, both State and continental; 
and, at the same October session of the Assembly in 1783, and before the 
passage of the cession law, she had provided for the appointment of super- 
intendents of surveys, or agents of the respective lines, with ample powers 
in reference to surveys and locations. Now, if the State line was allowed 
to participate in the Ohio reservation, then the land set apart in Kentucky 
might be divided between the troops of the respective lines, in pro|)orlion 
to the quantity of land which was required for tlie satisfaction of each. If 
the continental line only was allowed to locate in Ohio, then a larger por- 
tion must be set apart in Kentucky for the State line: that is, the conti- 
nental line having the sole benefit of the Ohio reservation, would require 
less land in Kentucky than it otherwise would have done; and the State 
line, having no benefit in it, would require more. This could not but have 
been well understood both by the Legislature of Virijinia, and the agents 
of the respective lines in attendance on that body at the time of the passage 
of the act of cession, as before stated. Accordingly, in pursuance of such 
understanding, the committee find that the superintendents of surveys of 
the respective lines, on entering upon the discharge of the duties of their 
appointments, immediately proceeded to divide the territory set apart in 
Kentucky between the troops of the respective lines, by metes and bounds; 
assigning to the troops of the State line, which were less than one-third the 
number of those of the continental line, nearly double the quantity of land 
which was assigned to the continental line. It appears from a letter of 
David H. Burr, draughtsman of the House, (see appendix No. 13,) that the 
whole quantity of land reserved in Kentucky for the satisfaction .of military 
bounties, was 9,728,(100 acres; and that, of this, 0,2t)8,000 acres was as- 
signed to the State line, and 3,520,000 acres to the continental line. Thus 
it will be perceived that ample indemnity was made to the State line for its 
want of participation in the Ohio reservation, by increasing its territory in 
Kentucky ; and that the effect of omitting to provide for the satisfaction of 
Stat'i line warrants in Ohio, was not to lessen the quantity of land appro- 
priated to that line, but merely to limit its choice to the lands in Kentucky ; 
a limitation which, at that period, must have been deemed of very trifling, 
if, indeed, it were considered of any importance. 

The committee have been thus particular in their examination of the al- 
leged mistake in the deed of cession, because it has been made the principal 
foundation for all the appropriations of scrip which have hitherto been 
made, and is still understeod to be a leading argument in favor of further 
appropriations. From this exatninalion, the committee think the House 
will he satisfied that there is not the sligfitest ground for complaint on the 
pan of Virginia, on account of any mistake in the deed of cession, no mis- 
take in the deed having been made ; that the only mistake which could 
possibly have happened was made by the clerk of the Virijinia House of 
Delegates, in omitting the words "on their own State establishment," in the 



Rep. No. 436. 77 

copy of the resolutions of Virginia of January 2, 1781, which was sent to 
Congress ; that such omission was well known and understood by the 
Legislature of that State when, three years afterward, the act of cession 
was passed ; that, at the time of the passage of the said act of cession, in 
December, 1783, the Legislature of that State voluntarily neglected to insert 
any provision for satisfying State line warrants out of the Ohio reservation — 
for the very good reason that it was of no importance to have them thus 
satisfied ; and that, in point of fact, the notion taken up by the Virginia 
claimants, and so long urged upon Congress, of there having been a mistake 
in the deed of cession, is itself a ^nistake of the most palpable and glaring 
character, and one which ought long since to have been discovered and 
corrected. 

Another argument in favor of these State bounty-land claims is based 
upon an alleged irUerference of the United States in the location of State 
line warrants in Kentucky, which, it is said, prevented the holders from 
obtaining satisfaction of them out of the lands set apart in that State for 
that purpose. This argument appears to have been but slightly glanced 
at when the scrip act of May, 1830, was passed ; but it has since assumed 
a greater degree of importance, particularly in the report made to the Vir- 
ginia House of Delegates in December, 1834, before referred to. This re- 
port, as has been before stated, was reprinted, by order of the House of 
Representatives of the United States, on the 19th of February, 1835, as an 
inducement to the appropriation of the 650,00(J acres of scrip made by act 
of March 3, 1835 ; and was, also, on the 25th of March, 1836, re()orted to 
the House by the Comiuittee on the Public Lands, and ordered to be again 
printed, accompanied by a bill making a further appropriation of land scrip 
for the satisfaction of Virginia warrants. (Document No, 158, 2d session 
23d Congress; and document No. 189, 1st session 21th Congress.) It also 
forms a principal part of the report of the Committee on the Public Lands 
of the present session, which accompanies bill No. 280, appropriating 
500,000 acres of land to satisfy such warrants. The importance thus 
given to this report renders it proper that this committee should notice it 
further. 

In order that the argument of this report may be fully and fairly stated, 
it will be inserted at length : 

" First, with respect to claimants for service in the State line. These 
have never ^ since the year 1784, had it in their poivirtomake their chiims 
available. In the year 1784, the superintendent appointed by the deputa- 
tion of officers, proceeded to Kentucky, for the purpose of laying off and 
surveying the lands in the military district of the Kentucky reserve, but 
found them in possession of the Indians, and claimed by them. The 
settlers in that country earnesdy represented to the Legislature of Virginia, 
that, if the surveys were persisted in, the infant and defenceless settlements 
in Kentucky would be involved in all the horrors and calamities of an In- 
dian war. Accordingly, at the October session of 1784, the Legislature 
authorized the Governor of V^irginia 'to suspend, for such time as he may 
think the tranquillity of the Government may require, the surveying or ta- 
king possession of those lands which lie on the northwest side of the river 
Ohio, or below the mouth of the river Tennessee, and which have been 
reserved for the officers and soldiers of the Virginia line and the Illinois re- 
giment.' (See Hen. Stat, at Large, vol. 11, p. 447.) In pursuance of this 
authoritv. the Governor of Virginia, on the 6th of January, 1785, issued his 



78 Rep. No. 436. 

proclamation, suspending trie surveys. Thus, Virginia, by her own act, 
put it out of the power ot her officers and soldiers, after the 6th of January, 
1785. to locate their warrants. This inhibition by the State authority con- 
tinued until the lUth of January, 1^86, when the prohibition was contin- 
ued by the act of the General Government. At that date, the treaty o! 
Hopewell was concluded between the United States and the Chickasaw In- 
diatis, ' guarantying to the Indians, as part of their habitation and liunting- 
grounds, all the lands below the Tennessee river ; and providing that, if any 
citizen of the United States, or any person not being an Indian, shall at- 
tempt to settle on any of the lands thereby allotted the Chickasaws to live 
and to hunt on, such person shall Jorfeit the protection of f he Uniied States 
of America, and the Chickasaws- may punish him or not, as they please J 
(See Mr. Johnson^s report, in the Journal of 1821-22. p. 4 of the report.) 
The treaty of Hopewell existed in force until the year 1818, when the Indian 
title was extinguished. After that period, Kentucky would not permit the 
locations of military warrants to be made. Thus it appears that the officers, 
&,c. of the State line, who had not surrendered their warrants prior to the 
6th January, 1785, (and they are many,) have been utterly precluded from 
the satisfaction of their claims until the recent appropriations by Con- 
gress — first, by an act of Vir;;^inia herself, resulting from humane consider- 
ations in relation to the infant settlement of JCentucky ; secondly, by the 
act of the Government of the United States ; and, finally, by the State of 
Kentucky. The holders of State line warrants dared not, from 1785 to 
3818, under the penalty of Indian violence and vengeance, intrude upon 
the lands allotted them. They forfeited even the protection of the United 
States ; and, if they offended against the provisions of the treaty, they were 
placed at the mercy of the ruthless savage. It cannot escape observation, 
that, but for the provisions of the treaty of Hopewell, the State line war- 
rants -might have been, and doubtless would have been, located in Ken- 
tuck y.''^ 

Tliis committee have looked into the matter here stated, and are con- 
strained to say that the committee who made the report from which this 
extract is taken labored under a most extraordinary misapprehension in re- 
gard to facts — a misapprehension for which it is difficult to find the sem- 
blance of an apology. Notwithstanding the assertion in the foregoing re- 
port, " that the officers, &.c., of the State line, who had not surrendered 
their warrants prior to the 6th of January, 1785, had been utterly preclu- 
ded from the satisfaction of their claims until the recent appropriations by 
Congress,*' and the long ar2:ument of the committee to prove such to have 
been the fact, it is, nevertheless, palpably untrue. On the contrary, the 
holders of tliose warrants had full and uninterrupted opportunity of satisfy- 
ing them in Kentucky, from 1784 until the 1st of May, 1792, when their 
further location was put an end to by the voluntary act of Virginia, and 
without any interference on the part of the United States. A brief state- 
ment of facts will put this matter in its proper lisht. 

The territory on the southeast side of the Ohio, which, by acts of May, 
1779, and November, 1781, had been set apart by Virginia for satisfying her 
military bounty land warrants, includerl all that part of the present State of 
Kentucky which lies south and west of Green river, and a line running 
from the source of said Green river, a southeast course, to the Cumber- 
land mountains. In 1784, the superintendents of surveys, as has been 
hereinbefore stated, divided this territory between the troops of the respec- 



Eep. No. 436. 79 

tive lines, assigning to each a portion by distinct bounds. That part of the 
territory assigned to the troops of the continental hne was bounded by the 
rivers Ohio, Green, and Big Barren, and a hne rnnning from the Big Bar- 
ren parallel with the south Inie of the State, and six miles distant therefrom, 
to the highlands between the Cumberland and Tennessee rivers, and along 
the highlands to the Ohio. To the State line, including tlie navy, was as- 
signed all the residue of the territory. All the boundary lines here alluded 
to are marked on Mimsell's large map of Kentucky, which may be found 
in the library of Congress, and from which the committee have ascertained 
the quantity of land included in the territory. (See correspondence with 
David H. Burr, appendix No. 13.) 

The number of acres in the whole territory is 9,738,000. Of this, there 
is included in the territory assigned to the continental line 3,520,(100 acres, 
and in the territory set apart to the State line and navy 6,:i08,000 acres. 
And (which is important to be noticed) of the territory assigned to the State 
line, 4,350,000 acres are situated east of the highlands which divide the Ten- 
nessee from the Cumberland river, and 1,858,000 acres west of said high- 
lands. 

Now, tlie proclamation of the Governor of Virginia, in January, 1785, 
suspending locations, and the treaty of Hopewell, in 1786, recognising the 
right of the Chickasaws, and excluding the whites from settling on their 
hunting grounds, apply only to that part of the State line territory which 
lies we>t of the beforementioned highlands, leaving all that part lying east 
of said highlands unincumbered by Indian clamis. The Indian title lo the 
whole of Kentucky which lies north and east of said highlands had been 
extinguished by purchase before the year 1779, (see 1 Marshall's History of 
Kentucky, p. 12 to 15;) and locations might have been made, and were, in 
point of fact, made on the same, without interruption or controversy, until 
the State of Virginia, by her own voluntary act, chose to terminate the 
right of location by act of her Legislature. On the 18th «f December, 
1789, the General Assembly of Virginia passed an act, declariiiir the terms 
on which the district of Kentucky might become an independent Slate, one 
of which was as follows, viz : 

"That the unlocated lands within the said district, which stand appro- 
priated to individuals, or description of individuals, by the laws of this 
Commonwealtli, for military or other services, shall be exempt from the dis- 
position of the proposed State, and shall remain subject to be disposed of 
by the Commonwealth of Virginia, according to such appropriation, until 
the first day of May, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-two, and no 
longer; thereafter, the residue of all lands remaining within the limits of 
said district shall be subject to the disposition of the proposed Suite." — 
(13 Hening's Statutes, 19.) These terms were acceded to by the people of 
Kentucky ; and thus, on the 1st of May, 1792, after the troops of the State 
line had had a free and uninterrupted opportunity of satisfying their claims 
for more than the period of eight years, Virginia chose voluntarily to aban- 
don any further claim on their behalf— doubtless under the belief that full 
and adequate opportunity had been given for the satisfaction of all just 
claims. 

it must be apparent that there was no deficiency of good lands in the 
State line territory, excludmg all that covered by the treaty of Hopewell, 
to satisfy all State warrant claims. It appears from a document hereto 
appended (appendix No. 4) that the whole quantity of warrants issued to 



80 Rep. No. 436. 

the State line and navy, before the 1st of May, 1792, was 1,140,583 acres. 
Now, the quantity of land in the State line territory lying east of the high- 
lands which divide the Tennessee from the Cumberland river, and which 
was unincumbered by Indian title, was, as before stated, 4,35U,0()() acres. 
If we suppose all the warrants issued to have been located, there would still 
have been left 3,209,417 acres unlocated ; which shows, conclusively, that if 
the Slate line warrants were not located in Kentucky, it was not for the 
want of unincumbered lands on which to satisfy them. A great portion of 
the land thus remaining unlocated was among the richest and most desira- 
ble in Kentucky, from the sale of which the Government of that State after- 
ward derived a large and continued revenue. 

In confirmation of the view here taken of the subject, the committee sub- 
mit a letter from the Hon. J. R. Underwood, member of the House of Rep- 
resentatives from Kentucky, who resides on the military bounty land terri- 
tory set apart by Virginia, and who, from his former professional employ- 
ments, and the judicial stations he has occupied, has become familiar with 
the history of that territory. 

The letter, which is in reply to one addressed him by a member of the 
committee, is as follows : 

Representative Chamber, January 30, 1840. n 

Sir : In reply to your letter of this date, I state that, after the termina- 
tion of the revolutionary war, there was a delegation of officers selected 
from the Virginia State and continental lines of the army, and sent to 
Kentucky for the purpose of superintending the location and survey of the 
lands. These superintending officers, as they were called, did not, accord- 
ing to my present recollection, appoint their surveyors and commence opera- 
tions until 1784. From that time until May, 1792, there was no obstruc- 
tion, from Indian title or otherwise, to prevent the location and survey of 
military land warrants in that part of the territory assigned to the State line 
east of the highlands that divide the waters of the Tennessee and Cumber- 
land rivers. 

There was a large quantity of land lying east of said hig-hlands, which 
became the property of Kentucky, under the compact with Virginia, in con- 
sequeilce of such lands remaining unlocated after the 1st of May, 1793. 
The precise quantity I have no means of ascertaining, but suppose it was 
not less than two millions of acres. 

I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

J. R. UNDERWOOD. 

Hon. HiLAND Hall. 

Having shown, contrary to the statement of the beforementioned report, 
that the opportunity for satisfying State line warrants on the reservation in 
Kentucky was full and complete from 1784 to 1792, it seems unnecessary 
to pursue the subject lurther. It may, however, be observed, in reference 
to that part of the military bounty-land district in Kentucky which lies west 
of the beforementioned highlands, that, according to a report of Mr. Jeffer- 
son, while Secretary of State, made in February, 1793, (see State Papers, 
1 Public Lands, p. 81,) the same was added to the military bounty land dis- 
trict by Virginia, in anticipation of a future purchase of the Indian tide by 
the State ; and that, such purchase not having been made, the treaty of 
Hopewell was but the acknowledgment of an existing Indian boundary. 



Rep. No. 436. 81 

which imposed no oblio^atioii on the United States towards those who 
mio-ht desire to make locations witiiin that part of such district. The 
question arose on the application to Congress of an individual wlio had, be- 
fore the deed of cession, located a State line warrant west of said highlands, 
but had been prevented from taking possession of the same, as he alleged, 
by the provisions of the treaty of Hopewell. The claim was rejected, for 
the reason before stated ; the holder of the warrant being deemed to have 
located it with the knowledge that the land was subject to the Indian title, 
and that it could not be made available until that title should become ex- 
tinguished. But it is obvious that any questions of this sort are of no im- 
poi-tance to the present inquiry. Had there been a deficiency of lands east 
of the highlands to satisfy the'State line warrants, then a question as to the 
obligation of the United Stales in reference to the Indian title west of the 
hiohlands might have arisen. As there was no such deficiency, but, on 
the contrary, a surplus of several millions of acres, a large portion of which 
was among the mo^t valuable in the State, no such question can properly 
be made. The holders of warrants had full opportunity of obtaining satis- 
faction of them, notwithstanding the treaty of Hopewell, and have no ground 
of complaint against the United States. 

Having now considered the arguments which are urged in favor of the 
satisfaction by the United States of the Slate line bounty land claims of 
Virginia, and ascertained them to be unfounded, it only remains for the 
committee to inquire whether tiie United States are under obligation to 
satisfy the bounties of the coiUiupntal line, by other appropriations than the 
Ohio reservation I This inquiry will be disposed of in a lew words. 

This committee are not aware of any such obligation. It certainly can- 
not be derived from the deed of cession. That deed reserved to Virginia, 
for the satisfaction of her continental hne bounties, the territory between 
the Scioto and Little Miami. It reserved nothing further ; and the committee 
are at a loss to conceive on what authority or principle it can be pretended 
that such additional ohligation has been imposed. By the report of the 
Commissioner of the General liand Oflice, (appendix No. 2,) it appears that 
there has been taken up, under continental warrants located on the Virgin- 
ia reservation in Ohio, 3,495,747 acres; and that, besides this, there has 
been satisfied by the United States, in scrip, in both lines, the additional 
quantity or 1,4.5S,022 acres ; making, in the whole, 4.953,709 acres, which 
the United States have satisfied of these warrants. By the same report, it 
is ascertained that the quantity of land contained in the Ohio reservation 
is 3,704,484 acres, which, deducted from the whole quantity of warrants 
satisfied by tlie United States, leaves 1,249,235 acres, equivalent to a pay- 
ment in money of . $1,501, ()f)G. which, it would seem, the troops of Virginia 
have already received, over and above the lull extent of the obligation which 
was imposed by the deed of cession. If the committee are right in the 
views they have takMi. (and they know not how these views can be contro- 
verted,) any further appropriation by Congress, either of land or money, to 
satisfy Virginia bounties of either line, would be a gratuity, which, in jus- 
tice to other States of tlie Union, ought not to be made. 

The committee do not conceive it possible that their object in the investi- 
gation they have in.ide can be misunderstood. Nevertheless, they will take 
occasion to say, that nothing could be farther from their design than to dis- 
parage the services of any portion of the troops composing the revolutiona-= 
ry army. The services and sacrifices of the troops of Virginia, in common 
6 



Q2 Rep. No. 436. 

with those of other States, were eminently valuable and patriotic, and none - 
would be more ready than the committee gratefully to acknowledge and^ 
liberally to reward them. But they have conceived it proper to establish 
certain rules by which the validity of claims for such services may be test- 
ed and their object has been to ascertain what rules would be most likely 
to 'do justice both to the claimants and the Government. Whether they 
have arrived at just conclusions, is for the House to determine. 

In conclusion, then, considering that no confidence can be placed in the 
validity of the claims on which'^the Virginia bounty-land warrants novr 
outstandintT have been aranted. and that, whether they be well or ill found- 
ed there is*no obligation on this Government to satisfy them ; and consider- 
in^ that the rules of evidence on which modern allowances of commutation 
pay have been made are found by experience to furnish no test of the integ- 
rity of the claims ; the committee submit for the consideration of the House 
the following resolutions, and recommend their adoption : 

Resolved, That no further appropriation ought to be made for the satis- 
faction of Virginia military bounty-land warrants. 

Resolved, That no claim for the commutation of five years' full pay, in 
lieu of half pay for lite, ought hereafter to be allowed, unless the name of 
the officer for whose services the pay is claimed shall be found returned, 
showincr him entitled thereto, on the officer's book in the Bounty 1-and Office; 
or unless such officer's title to the pay shall be shown by other equivalent 
documentary evidence. 



Kep. No. 436. 



APPENDIX. 



No. 1. 
FORM OF VIRGINIA LAND WARRANT. 

Land Office military warrant No. 8,658. 

To the principal surveyor of the land set apart for the officers and soldiers 
of the Commonwealth of Virginia : 

This shall be your warrant to survey and lay off, in one or more surveys, 
for George W. Grayson, one of the heirs of Heaberd Smallwood, his heirs 
or assigns, the quantity of sixty-two acres of land, due unto the said George 
W. Grayson, in consideration of said Heaberd Small wood's services lor sTx 
years and eight months as a captain in the continental line, agreeably to a 
certificate from the Governor and Council which is received into the land 
office. 

Given under my hand and the seal of the said office, this twenty-first 
[ L. s. ] day of Decembei', in the year one thousand eight hundred and 
thirty-eight. 

5£_^£!!!: W. SELDEN, Register Land Office. 

In pursuance of an advice of Council, I certify that this warrant has 
issued in conformity with laws of Virginia in force prior to the cession by 
that State of her western lands to Congress ; and I furthermore certify, that 
no other warrant has issued from the land office of Virginia, on account of 
the services of the witliin-mentioned Heaberd Smallwood, except Nos. 8,653, 
8,654, 8,655, 8,656, 8,657, 8,659, 8,660, 8,661, and 8,662, issued this day, 
and that no grant has issued on this warrant. 
^ Given under my hand and the seal of the said office, this 21st day of 

[ L. s. ] December, 1838. 

W. SELDEN, Register Land Office. 



84 



Rep. No. 436. 



6 



"^ >* ^ 

w a >s 
. '^ CM 

S Si -- 
S -S CO 



<; -o ^ 
.2 "^ "^ 

2 ^ CO 
?>.<; .^ 

^ 5^ 
=^ -So 

•^ '--.oj CO 

's =^ a, ?5^ 

O cij ijj V) 



C3 CO 






cr, ^ 
•S CO 



■S2 S ^ 



<ii 



5= v^S "^ 
!« 5 ji :S 



o -o 

o »n 

o -^ 

o o, 

O '^ 
O (M 
O I- 



^ c3 



"' 



O 

o 

QO 

O 






3 



c ■ — 

^ 8 



o o 

<^-« -4—* 

a a 

o o 

c o 



•^ o 

o en 
-^^ 

CO 



r^ . =r^ 



t»n , 



;_! 


*-. 


ri 


O 


ct 


r- 


in 


s 


rt 


^^ 


■^-^ 


J 1 


^ 


•ri 


<3) 


c; 


O 


73 



'c Lai 



O 
O 03 



C rx3 

c3 S 









5 f^< 



.ti c =: ? 

<y "5 '^"' -/o 

^^ 



c? 



^ 



= 5 
.tt'5 



O OJ o 
C5 (M O 

»n 00 o 
Oi o o 

tTj CTiy-^ ■ 

<^ CO CO '-O 



o o 

iC5 (M ii 

i-^ GO '^ 
00 «5 



Qo" 



to CQ o 
O 00 o 

(,-• CO CO o" 

oC> CO O 

-^ — I o 
cr. o rH 



00 



O O Ci 
•q^ "^ C/D 
O 'X t— I 



en 
to 



t>. 




lO 


> 




ro 


a 




oo 




© 


1— 1 




1-1 


^ 


^ 




!-i 


<-i 


F— t 


o 


rt 


-;i 


rO 


o 


^ 


r^ 




f—^ 


CJ 








■^ 




CI, 






(1) 


o 


'X2 


r/7 


CS 


c 






(-1 




C/J 


o 




ci 


r! 


• t^ 








C 


.2 


r-i 


tJO bO « 




Lh 










t^ 


r^;*4 



c 



CQ 




^ 




O 




Q 




h 




(— t 




w 




!-► 




K- 




rr> 




W 


CO 


g 


1— 1 


-a^ 


,G 


t-j 


h: 



CO 

00 



OJ 



1^ 



o 

P* 



Rep. No. 436. 85 

No. 3. 
General Land Office, Fehnmry 7, 1840. 
Sir: Agreeably to your request in person this morning, I have the honor, 
herewith, To enflose a copy of my letter of the 30th ultimo, to the honorable 
C. C.Clay, of the Senate. 

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 

JAMES WHITCOMB, Commissioner. 
Hon. HiLAND Hall, House of Reps. 

General Land Office, January 30, 1840. 

Sir: In answer to your letter of dale the 17th instant, as to the numbei- 
of outstanding military land warrants issued by the State of Virginia to 
the officers and soldiers of the Revolution, or their legal representatives, 
and the number of acres which would be required to satisfy such claims, 
&.C., I have the honor to inform you, that, since the 1st of September, 1835, 
to the 25th of January, 1840 (instant,) the qnaniity of land in warrants 
issued by the State of Virginia to the officers and soldiers of the Revolution, 
amounts to 416,285 acres^ It appears from a letter which I received yes- 
terday from the rcirister of the land office at Richmond, that the unsatisfied 
claims allowed, and on file in his office, amount to 138.819 acres ; many of 
which claims allowed will, he states, never be satisfied, '• bacause they have 
been on file for several years past. Some of them were allowed by the 
Executive twenty years ago ; and as most of them are the claims of privates^ 
1 doubt whether the necessary documents will ever be filed in this oifice; 
without which, the warrants will never issue."' 

The register also states in his letter, that "as to the number of acres in 
warrants which may be presented hereafter, it is impossible for me to give 
you any satisfactory information. I am, however, clearly of the opinion, 
that there are not many outstanding claims."' 

The number of warrants now on file in this office, in anticipation of a 
further appropriation, embraces a quantity of 165,074 acres. 

In making the apportionment of the quantity of acres appropriated by 
the act of 3d of March, 1835, among the warrants filed on the 1st of Sep- 
tember, 1835, in obedience to the injunction of that act, it was ascertained 
that the appropriation was only adequate to satisfy ninety per cent, (ex- 
chiding minute fractions) of the amount of claims filed, thereby requiring 
that ten per cent, should be deducted from the nominal amount of each 
claim. The excess of warrants so filed (being the aggregate of the ten per 
cent, deficit of the appropriation) is set down at 74,000 acres. 

From the foregoing exhibit you will be pleased to perceive the following 
result, viz : 
Amount, in acres, of warrants which have been issued from 

1st of September, 1835, to 25th of January, 1840 - 416,285 acres. 

Amount of claims allowed, and on file in the office at Rich- 
mond, and for which no warrants have as yet been issued 138,819 " 
To which add the aforesaid deficit of the last appropriation 74,000 " 

Constitute an aggregate of - - 629,104 acres, 

exclusive of claims which remain to be presented to the Executive of Vir- 
ginia, and of which, in the opinion of the register, " there are not many." 
1 have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 

JAMES WHITCOMB, Commissioner. 
Hon, C. C. Clay, United States Senate. 



S6 



Rep. No. 436. 

No. 4.— A. 



A statemeM showing the amount^ in acres, of Virginia milimry land war- 
rants issued prior to the 1st day of May, 1792, in consideration of ser- 
vices performed in the revolutionary war. 





Line uncertain. 


State line and navy. 


Continental line. 


TEAR. 


On acts and 

resolutions of 

Assembly. 


On certifi- 
cates. 


Line. 


Navy. 


On acts and 
resolutions 
of Assembly. 


On eenificates. 

-^ 


1782 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 

1790 
1 
2 


i 26,400 
75,500 
S,666f 
2,666| 


47,666| 
11,000 
3,266-1 

4,000 
2,666| 


110,133i 

438,468 
210,254^ 
10,467 
6,766| 
2,600 
9,166| 
7,966| 
5,777i 
10,933> 
100 


147,73H 
70,032^ 

5,933^ 
24,333^ 
16,300 
32,066| 

2,866| 
10,666| 
12,000 

6,000 


10,666| 
23,000 

6,000 


126,689i 

1,615,5851 

737,4451: 

80,0441: 

53,233^ 

26,065| 

18,366| 

6,333|. 

17,599f 

10,500 

700 




107,253^ 


68,600 


812,653^ 


327,930i 


39,666| 


2,692,563^7 


Total 


175,853^ acres. 


1,140,583| acres. 


2,732,230Vj acres. 



WM. G. PENDLETON, Reg. Land Office. 
Land Office, Feb. 2, 1822. 



I 



\ 



Rep. No. 436. 

No. 4.— B. 



87 



^4 statement showing the amount^ in acres^ of Virginia military land vmr- 
rants issued from the \st day of May, 1792, to the 1st of February, 1822, 
inclusive, in consideration of services performed in the revolutionary war. 





Line uncertain. 


State line and navy. 


Continental line. 


TEAR. 
















On acts and 


On certifi- 


Line. 


Navy. 


On acts and 


On certificates. 




resolutions of 


cates. 






resolutions of 






Assembly. 








Assembly. 




1792 






6,500 






25,244i 


3 


. 


- 


5,333^ 


200 


- 


11,766| 


4 


- 


- 


6,666| 


2,766| 


. 


13,373| 


5 


. 


- 


3,266| 


300 


. 


32,755^ 


6 


- 


- 


1,300 


2,766| 


- 


46,388^ 


T 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


41,652 


8 


2,666f 


- 


676 


- 


. 


36,370f 


9 




- 


- 


- 


. 


38,645 


1800 


f 


. 


700 


200 


_ 


29,188§ 


1 


-. 


- 


- 


- 


- 


24,166^ 


2 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


3,833^ 


3 


4,000 


- 


300 


- 


. 


17,344^ 


4 


4,000 


- 


- 


- 


. 


11,066| 


5 ; 


. 


- 


4,000 


. 


. 


14,555 


6 


. 


. 


. 


- 


- 


35,920 


7 


. 


. 


. 


. 


. 


140,9891 


8 


. 


. 


. 


. 


. 


139,037^ 


9 


. 


- 


. 


. 


- 


91, 105 J, 


10 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


119,456^ 


11 


- 


- 


1,333^ 


- 


- 


55,953^ 


12 


. 


•. 


400 


- 


- 


33,043| 


13 


. 


. 


100 


. 


« 


.39,088 


14 


- 


- 


. 


- 


- 


7,888 


15 


. 


- 


- 


- 


- 


5,780 


16 


. 


. 


. 


- 


- 


773| 


17 


. 


- 


. 


. 


- 


15,816| 


18 


. 


- 


. 


. 


- 


17,420| 


19 


. 


- 


200 


- 


- 


27,766| 


20 


- 


. 


100 


- 


- 


39,117t 


21 


- 


- 


300 


- 


. 


20,123 


22 


* 


- 


- 


- 


- 


1,203^ 




10,666§ 


- 


31,176 


6,233i 


- 


l,136,834f 


Total 


10,666| acres. 


37,40^ 


)^ acres. 


1,136,834| acres. 



WM. G. PEISDLETON, Reg. Land Office. 
Land Office, February 2, 1822. 



88 



Rep. No. 436. 

No. 4.— C. 



Virginia Land Office, 

Richmond.) February 10, 1840. 

Sir : I herewith transmit to you the statement which yon desired me to 
make for "the Committee on Revolutionary Claims of the House of Repre- 
sentatives." 

A statement shoioing the amount, in acres, of Virginia militari/ land war- 
rants issued from tlie \st of February, 1822, to the 9th of February, 
1840, inclusive. 



Year. 


State line. 


State navy. 


Continental 
line. 


On certificates. 




Acres, 


Acres. 


Acres. 




1822 - - . 


100 


_ 


36,1771 




1823 - 


100 


.^ 


34,289 




1824 - 


200 




60,980 




182.5 - 






200 




1826 - 


Too 




7,133' 




1827 - 






3,S66| 




1828 - 






1,840 




1829 - 






1,589| 




1830 - 


30,844 


56,279| 


25,5771 




1831 - 


26,589 i 


111,2774 


38,7.521 




1832 .. 


46,7134 


100,141-; 


92,4831 




1833 - 


43,644;- 


31.157f 


84,016> 




1834 - - - 


101,601?, 


99,1 65| 


225,228 1 




1835 - 


23,879 


97,730 


40,599| 




1836 - 


1,900 


2,966^ 


4,231 




1837 - 


5,700 


5,333 


31,8091 




1838 - 


11,029', 


96,7221 


114,289 i 




1839 - 


5,495' 


21,2121 


41,053 




1840, to 10th February 


- 


- 


400 


- 




297;8952 


621, 984 1 


844,515 





Officers for whose services warrants have issued from 1782, inclusive, to 
the 9th of February, 1840, to wit : 

Of the continental line -...-. 1,030 
Of the State line ...... 234 

Of the State and continental navy .... 268 



The aggregate 



1,532 



The number of persons other than officers, for whose services military 
warrants have issued within the period above mentioned, is 4,959. 



Rep. No. 436. 89 

The Executive allowances for military services, now on file, for which 
no warrants have issued, amount to about 122.994 acres : of which quan- 
titv 82,627| acres are allowed for services in continental hne ; 
18,733^ acres for services in State line ; 
21,633 acres ior services in State navy. 



122,994 acres. 

Many of these allowances were made from fifteen to twenty years ago ; 
and I think it highly probable that warrants will never be issued to satisfy 
them. Most of these claims are for services rendered by privates and sea- 
men ; and, as the claims are small, (in no instance exceeding 200 acres.) the 
parties interested will not incur the expense and trouble to obtain the war- 
rants. For, in order to obtain one or more warrants, in any one case, the heir 
or heirs must obtain a duly authenticated order of some court of record, cer- 
tifying that the officer or soldier died before or after the 1st of January. 1787, 
and that he died testate or intestate ; if testate, there must be exhibited a 
certified copy of the will. And if any adult heir is dead, then His heir must 
exhibit an order of court certifying that he died testate or intestate ; and if 
he died testate, a copy of his will must be produced here. The order of 
court must certify who are the heirs, and that they are the only heirs. The 
heirs must also make affidavit that they are the idevtical persons named in 
said order, and that they verily believe they are the 07rli/ heirs. And their 
affidavit must be sustained by that of some other person (who must be cer- 
tified by a justice of the peace as a man entitled to full credit) that he be- 
lieves, from his own knowledge, or from common reputation, that they are 
the heirs of the deceased officer or soldier. 

I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

S. H. PARKER, 
Register of Virginia Land Office. 

Hon. HiLAND Hall. 



90 



Rep. No. 436. 

No. 5. 



Stateynent showing the number and grade of the commissioned officers of 
the Virgiriia continental line, who served to the close of the revolutionary 
war, or became supernumerary under the several arrangements of the 
army, which took place subsequent to the passage of the resolutions of 
Congress of the Sd and 21st October, 1780, all of whom were entitled to 
commutation pay and bounty lands at the close of the war. 



t 


c 

o 

o 


jA 
'3 

a 

(U 

O 


jA 

c 
o 

"o 
O 


J 
"o 
O 

c 
a 

0) 


CO 

O 


a 
a 


s 
ee 
c 
3 

3 

a 
'5 

Di- 
es 

O 


i2 
c 
a 
a 

3 


lA 

a 
bp 

'm 

C 

W 


<u 

a 
o 
O 

4 
2 

1 

7 


a 
o 

3 
CO 

7 

1 
1 

1 

1 
11 


c5 

~c 
o 
<v 
be 

3 

3 

1 
4 

m 


to 

a> 

1 

<; 


Number of general officers - 

Number of officers of infantry 
whose regiments are not de- 
signated 

Officers of 1st regiment in- 
fantry ... 

Officers of 2d regiment in- 
fantry . . - 

Officers of 3d regiment in- 
fantry ... 

Officers of 4th regiment in- 
fantry ... 

Officers of 5th regiment in- 
fantry ... 

Officers of 6th regiment ia- 
fantry ... 

Officers of 7lh regiment in- 
fantry ... 

Officers of 8th regiment in- 
fantry ... 

Officers of Ist regiment dra- 
goons 

Officers of 3d regiment dra- 
goons - - 

Officers of 4th regiment dra- 
goons ... 

Officers of 1st regiment artil- 
lery- 
Officers of Col. Posey's regi- 
ment infantry 

Officers of Lieut. Col. Lee's 
legion . - - 


1 

1 


4 

4 


9 

1 
1 

1 
1 

1 
14 


10 

1 

_ 

1 
1 

1 

1 
1 

1 
1 

18 


13 

1 

3 

1 

1 

1 
1 

21 


64 
1 
4 
3 
2 
1 
3 

6 

7 

2 

10 

1 
2 

106 


2 

1 
2 
3 

~ 

9 
17 


62 
1 

4 
1 
6 

5 
5 

13 

12 

1 

10 
4 
3 

127 


10 

2 
3 

2 
2 

19 


5 

180 
4 

7 

14 

4 

8 

« 

1 

29 

25 

4 

33 

9 

11 

349 



Rep. No. 436. 



91 



Statement of the number and grade of the commissioned officers of the 
Virginia continental line, who became svpernumerary wider the several 
arrai^gements of the army mtde prior to the month of October, 1780, 
and, as such, were entitled, at the end of the war, to bounties in land 
alone. 



Officers of infantry whose regiments are not desig- 
nated . - - - - 
Officers of 3d regiment of infantry - 
Officers of 4t?i regiment of infantry - 
Officers of 2d regiment of infantry - 
Officers of 5th regiment of infantry - 
Officers of 6th regiment of infantry - 
Officers of 8th and 1 1th regiments of infantry 



17 



13 






10 
5 
3 
2 
5 
5 
2 



32 



Statement of the number and grade of the officers of the Virginia con- 
tinental line returned as having been " Jcilled in action,'' the heirs of 
whom are entitled to bounty lands. 





w 
a 
v 

O 


a 

O 

3 


'5" 


Vj 

O 


Capt. Lieutenants. 


<o 

ba 
< 


General officers - - - - 
Officers of artillery 
Officers of 1st regiment of infantry 
Officers of 4th regiment of infantry 
Officers of 8th, 9th, and 11th regiments of 
infantry - - - - 
Officers of regiments of infantry not desig- 
nated . - - - - 


1 


1 
1 


i 


2 

2 


1 

1 


1 
1 

1 
1 

3 
3 




1' 


2 


1 


4 


2 


10 



92 



Rep. No. 436. 



Statement of the number and grade of the nion-commissioved oJJicerSy 
9misicians, and privates of the Virginia continental line, who enlisted 
for " during the war,'^ and served until its terniination ; to which is 
added the number of non commissioned officers and privates belonging 
to the State of Virginia, who served under etdistm,ents for " during the 
warr and to the end thereof, in the first partisan legion, commanded 
by Brigadier General Armand, and who were credited to the IState 
of Virginia as a part of the required quota of that State to the con- 
tinental battalions ; all of whom are embraced by the resolutions of 
Congress jiroviding bounties in land. 



\ 







J£ 








o 






^ 


eS 


re 


<u 


bo 


' 




be 

0) 


O 
O 


'35 

3 




Si) 


Of artillery 


. 


6 


3 


9 


7G 


94 


Of dragoons - - - 


- 


13 


13 


1 


138 


165 


Of infantry 


- 


29 


19 


20 


371 


439 


Of Lee's leo^ionary corps 


- 


5 


4 


1 


64 


74 


Armand's first partisan legion, 


(the grades of 












■ the men not designated) 




- 


- 


- 


136 


136 




53 


39 


31 


785 


908 



Recapitulation. 

Number of officers returned as being entitled to commutation pay 
and bounty lands ...... 

Number of supernumerary officers returned as being entitled to 
bounty lands alone ...... 

Number of officers returned as having been " killed in action," heirs 
entitled to bounty lands ...--- 



Number of non-commissioned officers, musicians, and privates re 
turned as entitled to bounty lands . . - 



349 
32 
10 

391 

- 908 



Department of War, 
Bounty Land Office, February 6, 1839. 

Sirj: In answer to the several interrogatories submitted in the accompa- 
oying letter of the Hon. Hiland Hall, chairman of the select committee ap- 
pointed by a resolution of the House of Representatives of the 24th ultimo, 
I have the honor to report, that there are in this office two lists, exhibiting 



Rep. No. 436. 93^ 

the names and rank of the officers of the Virginia continental line : one of 
which is a o-eneral hst, and purports to show the nam^s and rank of all the 
officers of the continental hnesof the several States, distinguishmg between 
those who acquired a riijht to the commutation of half pay and bounty lands, 
and those who, in coiisequence of their becoming supernumerary pnor tc 
the passao-e of the resolutions of Congress of October 3d and 21st, 17h(^, 
were entitled to bounty lands alone, at the close of the war ; this list also 
comprises the names and rank of such officers as were "kil ed m action,' 
the hcMrs of whom were promised bounty lands. Oi the number, rank, dec, 
of which these three classes were composed, I beg leave to refer to the three 
first statements hereto annexed, the same being carefully drawn from, and 
founded upon, the lists first above referred to. The other hst is distinct, 
and embraces the names and rank of the officers, non. commissioned officers, 
musicians, and privates, of the Virginia continental hue alone. As it re- 
gards the ofJicers of that line, there is scarcely any disagreement between 
the two lists, worthy of note. For the number of men composing the rank 
and file of the Viro-inia continental line, who acquired a right to bounty- 
lands under the resolutions of Congress providing that bounty, I respect- 
fully refer to the fourth, and concluding statement, hereto subjoined. 

The o-eneral list, above referred to, was, as I understand, prepared by, 
and is in the handwriting of, Joseph Howell, who, it appears from the jour- 
nals of the old Congress, was elected commissioner of army accounts on 
the 28th August, 17b8, and subsequently appointed accountant of the War 

Department. .. . • • i r 

In reo-ard to the other, and separate list of the Virginia conlmenrai line. 
It appecu-s by the act of Congress, approved the lOth August, 1790, entitled 
'• An act to enable the officers and soldiers of the Virginia line on conti- 
nental establishment to obtain titles to certain lands lying in the military 
reservations in Ohio," that the then Secretary of War was required to nnmsh 
said list to the Kxecutive of the State of Virginia ; and that it was furnished 
in short time thereafter, there is no reason to doubt. By the conflagration 
of the War Ofiice, in the year 1800, most of the revolutionary records filed 
therein were consumed, or otherwise lost or destroyed ; hence, it became 
necessary, in order to facilitate the examination of Virginia claims, that an 
authenticated copy of said list should be procured from the Executive ot 
that State ; it is, therefore, a matter of record on the books of the depart- 
ment, that the same was applied for on the 17th May, 1811, and transmitted 
to the department on the 31st of the same month and year. 

In reference to the third interrogatory contained in the enclosed letter, 1 
have to state that there are no pay or mur-ter rolls in this office, showing 
the names of the officers of the Virginia line who "died, resigned, or other- 
wise lost their places in the army," except in regard to those who quitted the 
service, as the necessary consequence of their becoming supeniumeranes, 
as shown by the annexed statements. 

Having remarked fully, and perhaps satisfactorily, in reference to the 
authenticity of the lists in question, and presuming that the spirit of the in- 
quiries on The subject applies also to the extent of the reliance placed on them 
by the department, I have to state, as the result of my examinations, that the 
names of many officers of the Virginia, as well as of the other continental 
lines, were omitted to be placed on said lists ; inasmuch as the registers ot 
issues in this office show that many land warrants were granted to, or in right 



94 Rep. No. 436. 

of, officers whose names do not appear on either of the lists in question, and 
many of those grants were made prior to 'the catastrophe that occasioned 
the destruction of the records in the year 1800, and also many more in each 
succeedinii; year since that period. Hence, in the adjudication of the claims 
for land bounty, it is manifest that the department resorted to other sources 
of information, even at that early day; and, subsequently, to other satisfac- 
tory evidence, derived from authentic rolls and records, furnished at various 
periods by the several States, together with the testimony of individuals. 
Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 



Hon. Secretary of "War. 



WILLIAM GORDON. 



No. 6. 
Excess of land granted to officers of tlie continental line. 

The number of non-commissioned officers and privates of the Virginia 
continental line, who were entitled to bounty lands from that State by hav- 
ing served to the eiid of the war, is known from actual returns, and is stated 
in the letter of Mr. Gordon, clerk of the United States Bounty Land Office. 
(Appendix No. 5.) 

From that statement, it can be ascertained how much land was due from 
Virginia to the men who served to the end of the war. Thus — 

92 non-commissioned officers, at 400 acres, is - 36,800 acres. 

816 musicians and privates, at 200 acres, is - - 163,200 " 



Whole amount of bounty to the war men - 200,000 acres. 

The three years' non-commissioned officers and privates were entitled to 
precisely one-half the bounty of the during-the-war men. 

If we suppose tlie three years' men to have been double the number of 
the men who enlisted for the war, their bounty will amount to the same 
number of acres. Thus — 

Acres;. ■ 

908 non-commissioned officers and privates, as above, for the war 200,009 
1,816 do. do. for 3 years - 200,000 



2,724 400,000 



Now, the whole quantity of land which has been granted by Virginia for 
services in the continental line, is ascertained as follows: 

Acres. 

Warrants located in Kentucky, (appendix No. 2) . - 724,045 
Warrants located in Ohio, (appendix No. 2) - - - 3,495,747 
Warrants for which scrip issued up to September, 1835, (ap- 
pendix No. 2) - - - - - - 614,133 

Warrants issued since Jatmary 1, 1836, (appendix No. 4) - 191,782 

Claims allowed, but warrants to issue, (appendix No. 4) - 82,627 

Making, in the whole ..... 5,108,334 



Rep. No. 436. 05 

Acres. 
Bronsht forward ------ *5,108,334 

Deduct bounty lands due non-commissioned officers and privates 400.000 

Leaves to be appropriated to officers - - 4,708,334 

The quantity of land to which a regiment of officers is entitled, accord- 
ing to tiie arrangement under the resolution of Congress of May 27, 1778, 
may be ascertamed as follows: 
• 1 Colonel - - 6,666f acres. 

1 Lieutenant colonel - 6,000 " 

1 Major ~ - 5,333-i '' 

Captains, at 4,000 each 24,000 " 
9 Lieutenants, at 2,666| each 24,01)0 " 
9 Ensigns, at 2,666| each 24,000 " 

1 Surgeon - - 6,000 '= 
1 Surgeon's mate - - 4,000 " 

Making 100,000 acres, to which the 29 officers 
of each regiment, for three years' service, would be entitled. The staff 
officers, except surgeons and surgeon's mates, were not entitled to land from 
Yirginia. The infantry of the Virginia line was arraoged in September, 
1778, with the foregoing number of officers to each regunent. 

If we divide the number of acres, 4,708,334, appearing by the foregoing 
statement to be remaining for the officers after the claims of those below 
them in rank had been satisfied, by 100,000, the number of acres to which 
each regiment of ofiicers would be entitled, we shall have 47 as the number 
of regiments which such remaining quantity of land would be sufficient to 
satisfy. . 

But, again: let us suppose that all the persons who have received war- 
rants from Virginia, as stated by the register of the Virginia land office, 
(appendix No. 4,) 6,491 in number, were actually entitled to bounty lands, 
and make a calculation on that basis : 

Of the 6,491, the number of those not officers was • - - 4,9o9 

Deduct one-fourth, as belonging to the State line and navy - 1,^39 

Number not officers of the continentdl line - - - 3.720 

Of these there were, during the war men - - - ^08 

Leaving of 3 years' men ----- 2,Si^ 

These men would be entitled to land as follows : 

Acres. 

90S non commissioned officers and privates, as before shown 200,000 

320 non-commissioned officers for 3 years, at 200 acres - 64,000 

2,492 privates, at 100 acres each ... - 249,200 

3.720 non-commissioned officers and privates entitled to - 5 1 3,200 



* There is a discrepancy between the quantity of land allowances, as shown by the returns ot 
Ihe General Land Office and those from the register of tlie land office at Richmond, which 
the committee are unable lo account for. By the returns from the register of Virginia, (ap- 
pendix No. 4 ) the quantity of continental warrants, including those which are put down as 
uncertain is 4,07-2,059 acres, being 136,275 acres less than the quantity shown by the Commis- 
sioner of the Grneral Land Office. The difference is not, however, sufficiently great to atttct 
ihe argument, nnd has not, therefore, been noticed iu the body of the report. 



96 Rep. No. 436. 

Now for the result : 

Acres. 
Whole number of acres of warrants . . , 5,108,334 

Deduct bounties of 3j720 men, as above - . - 513,200 



Leaves to be appropriated to ofEcers - - - 4,595,134 

If this number of acres be divided by the number to which each regiment 
would be entitled, it shows sufficient land to have been granted* to officers 
to supply over 45 regiments. 



No. 7.— A. 

Depredation pay. 

[extract.] 

' Auditor's Office, Virginia, 

February 12, 1840. 
Sir : I know of no other channel through which the officers of the Vir- 
ginia State line and the V'irginia continental line could have received their 
depreciation pay, IVoni .lanuary, 1777, to December 31, 1781, except by ap- 
plication to the auditors, in conformity with the act of November, 1781 ; 
unless you consider as a deviation from that mode the fact, that the Legis- 
lature has, in two instances at least, (perhaps in others,) authorized the au- 
ditor to settle claims of that description, which, from the lapse of time, he 
would not have done without such legislative sanction. The cases to 
which I refer are those of Robert II. Harrison and John Nicholas, of the 
continental line. 

1 am, very respect full v, your obedient servant, 

JAS. E. HEATH, 

AudiUr of Virginia. 
Hon. Hi LAND Hall. 



ISO. 7.— B. 

Auditor's Officr, Virginia, 

February 28, 1840. 
Sir : I have duly received yours of the 24th instant. 
There is in this office a list of the officers and soldiers of the Virginia 
continental line, and also of the Virginia State line and navy, to whom cer- 
tificates were issued for their depreciation pay under the act of November, 
1781. I think I informed yon, on another occasion, that, besides the offi- 
cers whose names are recorded on these lists, John Nicholas and Robert 
H. Harrison received their depreciation under special acts of the Virginia Le- 
gislature; and it is ;>rry6«i/e that some few others may have been paid in 
certificates many years since, under special acts, and their names not re- 
corded. With these exceptions, however, 1 believe these lists contain the 
names of all the officers with whom settlements v/ere made. 
Very respectfullv, your obedient servant, 

JAS. E, HEATH 
Hon. H. Hall. 



Rep. No. 436. 

No. 8. 

s. 

List of the conimulation acts jiassed since the Ath of June, 1794. 



&7 



Date of acts. 



1794, June 4 
1808, April 22 
1816, April 29 

1828, May 23 
24 
26 

1833, March 2 

1830, May 26 

28 
1833, March 2 

1830, Mar. 29 

1832, July 14 
1830, May 29 

1833, March 2 

1830, May 28 

1832, May 25 

25 
25 

25 

25 

Mar. 25 
June 15 

15 

July 14 
14 

1833, Feb. 9 

March 2 

2 
2 



2 
2 
1834, June 30 
30 
30 
30 
30 
30 
30 
30 
30 



Lewis Dubois, colonel 5ih regiment New York 

Philip Turner, surgeon ------ 

Rvpreseniaiives of" Alexander Hamilton, lieutenant colonel, 

including interest - - - _ - 

Alexander Garden, lieutenant - - - - - 

Caleb Stark, lieutenant . . - - - 

Philip Slaughter, captain Virginia line - ^2,400 00 

Do. interest - - - 6,557 20 



1,600 00 
3,230 SO 



3,600 00 

7, -^54 58 



1,600 00 
3,230 30 



Mountjoy Bayly, captain Maryland line 
James Harnett, lieutenant Virginia line 

Do. interest - - - - 

Representatives of Robert H. Harrison, lieu- 
tenant colonel Maryland . - - 
Representatives of Robert H. Harrison, interest 

Representatives of William Price, lieutenant 
1st Virginia regiment . - . 

Represeniatives ol William Price, interest 

Thomas Blackwell, captain Virginia line 
Representatives of Wm. Vawters, lieutenant, including interest, 
Virginia line - - - - - - - 

John Roberts, major Virginia line, including interest, Virginia 
Representatives of Reginald Hillary, lieutenant, Maryland, 

including interest, 1st regunent Maryland troops 

Representatives of George Baylor, colonel of cavalry, including 

intere&i, Virginia - . - . . - 

Representatives of Wm. Carter, surgeon, including interest, 

Virginia - - - - - - - 

Edmund Brooke, lieutenant, including interest, Virginia - 
Represeniatives of Samuel J. Axson, surgeon, including inter- 
est, South Carolina - - " - 
John Knight, surgeon's male, including interest 
J. J. Jacobs, lieutenant, including interest, Maryland line 
Representatives of Thomas Davenport, captain, including in- 
terest, Georgia line ------ 

Representatives of John Thornton, colonel, including interest, 
Virginia ------- 

Representatives of John P. Wagnor, lieutenant, including in- 
terest, Georgia ...... 

Thomas Triplett, captain, including interest, Virginia line - 
John Thomas, captain Virginia line, including interest, Vir- 
ginia -------- 

Peter Foster, lieutenant Virginia line, including interest, Vir- 
ginia -------- 

James Gibbon, captain, including interest, Pennsylvania 
Representatives of Isaac Ledyard, surgeon, including interest 
Ephraim VVhittal;er, captain - . - - - 

Thomas Minor, captain, Virginia- . - . . 

Representatives of James Craine, captain Virginia line 
Representatives of John Taylor, lieutenant Virginia line 
Represeniatives of Joseph Torrey, major Hazen's regiment - 
Representatives of Everard Meade, captain Virginia line 
Representatives of Wm. Royall, captain Virginia line 
Robert Wilmott, lieutenant Maryland line 
Representatives of Wm. Teas, cornet Virginia line - 



Amount al- 
lowed. 



$7,520 00 
2,400 00 

10,009 64 
1,600 00 
1,600 00 



8,957 20 
2,400 00 

4,830 30 



10,854 58 



4,830 30 
2,400 00 

4,821 45 
9,040 23 

4,821 45 

16,950 44* 

10,848 29 
6,026 82 

10,850 86 
7,233 90 

4,824 27 

7,236 38 

13,594 82 

4,830 30 
7,245 45 

7,245 45 

4,830 31 
7,245 45 
14,184 66 
2,400 00 
2,400 00 
2,400 00 
1,600 00 
3,000 OO 
2,400 00 
2,400 00 
2,000 OO 
1,600 00 



98 



Rep. No. 436. 
No. 8 — Continued. 



Date of acts. 



Amount al- 
lowed. 



1834, June 30 

30 

30 

30 

30 

1836, June 23 



July 



28 
2 
2 

1838, May 25 

June 12 

12 

12 

12 
12 
12 
13 
13 



July 



Representatives of George Hurlbut, captain Sheldon's regiment 
Connecticut line ...... 

Representatives of Enos Granniss, captain Colonel Baldwin's 
regiment of artificers ------ 

Representatives of BuUer Claiborne, captain Virginia line 
John Emerson, lieutenant Virginia - - - - 

Representatives of Thomas Wallace, lieutenant Virginia line 
Representatives of Absolom Baird, surgeon regiment of ar- 
tificers ....... 

Representatives of Robert Jouett, lieutenant Virginia line 
Representatives of David Hopkins, captain South Carolina line 
Representatives of Thornton Taylor, ensign Virginia line 
Representatives of James Witherell, ensign Massachusetts line 
John Spitfathom, lieutenant Virginia line - . . 

Representatives of Wm. Cogswell, surgeon - . - 

Representatives of Wm. Rusworm,lieutenant North Carolina 
line -------- 

Moses Van Campen, lieutenant Pennsylvania line 
Samuel Warren, captain South Carolina 5th regiment 
Representatives of Henry Morfit, lieutenant Pennsylvania line 
Representatives of Daniel Duval, captain Virginia line 
Representatives of Patrick McGibony, lieutenant North Car- 
olina -------- 

Representatives of Wm. Johonnott, surgeon 
Representatives of Charles Snead, captain of infantry, Vir- 
ginia line --.---. 
Representatives of John B. Ashe, lieutenant colonel 1st North 
Carolina regiment -..-... 
Joseph Prescott, surgeon . . . - . 

Representatives of Timothy Feely, lieutenant Virginia line - 
Representatives of Daniel Williams, captain North Carolina 
6th regiment continental line - - - . 

Representatives of William H. Smith, acting surgeon - 

Total 



^3,000 00 



2,000 00 


2,400 00 


1,600 00 


1,600 00 


2,400 00 


1,600 00 


2,400 00 


1,200 00 


1,200 00 


1,200 00 


2,400 00 


1,066 67 


1,600 00 


2,400 00 


1,600 00 


3,000 00 


1,600 00 


7,200 00 


2,400 00 


3,600 00 


3,600 00 


1,600 00 


2,400 00 


2,400 00 


277,495 22 



Treasury Department, 

Registers Office, February 2, 1839. 



T. L. SMITH, Register. 



No. 9. 



[From reports of the Secretary of War, State Department, Lib. 3, No. 149.] 
Acceptance of the commutation by the Virginia line. 

At a meeting of the officers of the Virginia line who are arranged to be 
called into service as occasion may require, Fredericksburg, May 14, 1783 : 
A resolution of Congress of the 22d of March last, proposing a commu- 
tation of five years' full pay, in lieu of the half pay for life formerly prom- 
ised, being read ; after mature deliberation, the meeting unanimously agree 
to accept of the five years' pay, on the terras mentioned in the said resolu- 
tion. 

JOHN GREEN, Colonel 6th Virg. Reg., 
And agent appointed by the officers to transmit ^ 
their opinion to the, Commander-in-chief, 



Rep. No. 436. 99 

Fredericksburg, May 15, 1783. 

At a meeting of the supernumerary and retiring officers of the Virginia 
line who are entitled to half pay for life, promised by Congress, as resolved 
by them the 22d day of March last, proposing a commutation of the half 
pay by the payment of five years' full pay in lieu thereof, being read ; 
after mature deliberation, the meeting unanimously agree to accept of the 
five years' full pay on the terms proposed by the said resolution. In con- 
firmation whereof, the said officers have signed ther names hereto. 

A. BUFORU, Colonel Wth Reg., 
And agent apjjoinied by the officers to transmit 
their opinion to Congress. 



No. 10.— A. 

War Department, February 8, 1839. 

Sir : I respectfully transmit the accompanying reports of the Third Au- 
ditor, the Commissioner of Pensions, and the officer in charge of the Bounty 
Land Office, in reply to your letter of the 31st ultimo, inquiring whether there 
are in this department lists of the officers, non-commissioned officers, and 
privates of the Virginia continental line of the army of the Revolution, who 
became entitled to commutation and bounty land; and whether there is a 
list, also, of the officers of the continental line who died, resigned, or other- 
wise lost their places in the army, &c. &c. 

Very respectfully, your most obedient servant, 

J. R. POINSETT. 

Hon. HiLAND Hall, Chairman of Select Committee 

on the subject of Virginia claims, H. R. • 

[Note. — For statement from Bounty Land Office, see appendix No. ,5.] 



No. 10.— B. 

Treasury Department, 
Third Auditor'' s Office, Febrtiary 5, 1839. 

Sir : In his letter of the 3 1st ultimo, to you, (and which has been referred 
to me for a report,) the Hon. Hiland Hall, as chairman of the select com- 
mittee, appointed in obedience to a resolution of the House of Representatives 
of the 24th of January, 1839, on the subject of Virginia claims, asks for in- 
formation on the following points, to wit: 

1. " Whether there is, in the VVar Department, a list of the names of the 
ofiicers of all the regiments of the continental army of the Revolution, who, 
as having served to the end of the war, or as having become supernumerary 
under the several arrangements of the army, were entitled to bounty land 
and commutation pay; and if so, at what period, for what purpose, and 
from what materials, is such list known or supposed to have been made ?" 

2. " Whether there is, in the War Department, another ancient list (cor- 
responding with the former, so far as relates to the officers) of the ofiicers, 
non-comnxissioned officers, and privates of the Virginia continental line ; 



100 Rep. No. 436. 

and if so, at what period, and for what purpose, is such list supposed to have 
been made?" 

3. " Whether there is any list remaining of the officers of the several 
regiments of the continental line, who died, resigned, or otherwise lost their 
places in the army ; and if not, whether the muster and pay rolls of the 
army, or other authentic materials from which such list could be made, are 
now in existence?" 

4. "A statement of the number of officers of each grade, in each branch 
of the service, and of the number of non commissioned officers and pri- 
vates, belonging to the Virginia continental line, who are returned' on the 
lists before mentioned as entitled to bounty land ; and, also, a statement of 
the number of officers of each grade, in each branch of the service, who 
appear from said lists to be entitled to commutation pay." 

Understanding the first of the foregoing inquiries to relate to a book on 
file in the Bounty Land Office, known as " the officer's book," I have the 
honor to state that said book is in the handwriting of Joseph Howell, Esq., 
who was assistant paymaster general and connnissioner of army accounts, 
until 1788, when he succeeded to the office of conmiissioner, upon the 
death of Mr. Pierce; and was subsequently appointed accountant of the 
War Department, in which latter capacity he continued until the year 1795. 
The Ust, or officer's book, in question, I have always understood and be- 
lieved was prepared after the close of the revolutionary war, and from facts 
ascertained from the muster rolls and other evidences of service, in the 
course of settling the officers' accounts for their arrearages of pay, &c., that 
remained due at the close of the war. It is presumed that the names of 
officers were added to said list or book, in making settlements under the 
laws suspending the act of limitation. Whether said list or book contains 
the name of every officer of all the regiments, or corps, of the continental 
army of the Revolution, who were then considered entitled to bounty land 
Ipnd commutation pay, 1 cannot say. The purpose for which said list or 
book was prepared, it is supposed, was to ascertain what officers were en- 
titled to bounty land ; and it may also have been designed as a check against 
double payments of commutation, A:c. 

It is understood that Mr. Gordon, of the Bounty Land Office, will answer 
Mr. Hall's second inquiry. Of the list referred to in that inquiry, I have 
no knowledge beyond the fact that I have been informed that such a list 
was furnished to the Secretary of War, in the year 1811, by the Executive 
of Virginia. 

In regard to Mr. Hall's third inquiry, I have to state that I have no 
knowledge of there beinsf in existence any list "of the officers of the sev- 
eral regiments of the continental line, who died, resigned, or otherwise lost 
their places in the army," except such as appear on the list referred to in 
the first inquiry. Although there are a number of old muster and pay rolls 
of the revolutionary army still on file in this office, yet they are so imper- 
fect, (their connexion being broken by many of them having been lost by the 
burning of the War Office, in the year 1800, and the public buildings, in 
the year 1814.) that I am satisfied that it would be wholly impracticable to 
make from them any thing like a perfect list "of the officers who died, re- 
signed, or otherwise lost their places in the army." 

The report of Mr. Gordon, it is presumed, will furnish all the informa- 
tion sought by Mr, Hall's fourth and last inquiry. All the officers who 
shall appear on the statement which Mr. Gordon will furnish, in reply to 



Rep, No. 436. 1 01 

that inquiry, as having become supernumerary subsequent to the resolu- 
tions of Congress of October, 1780, (granting half pay for life,) or as having 
served to the end of the war, were entitled to commutation pay. 
Mr. Hall's letter is herewith returned. 

With great respect. 

PETER HAGNER, Auditor. 
Hon. J. R. Poinsett, 

Secretary of War. 



No. 10.- C. 

War Department, 
Pension Office^ February 4, 1839. 

Sir: In answer to the letter of the Hon. Hiland Hall, of the 31st ultimo, 
a copy ot which is enclosed, I have to inform you that there is not in this 
office "a list of the names of the officers of all the regiments of the conti- 
nental army of the Revolution, who, as having served to the end of the war, 
or as having become supernumerary under the several arrangements of the 
army, were entitled to bounty land and commutation pay." 

There are in this office lists of the officers, non commissioned officers, 
and privates, of the Virginia continental line ; but they do not purport to be 
lists of those who were entitled to commutation pay or bounty land. The 
lists are — 

1. " A list of the officers' names who received certificates for one and two 
years' advanced pay, agreeably to the act of Assembly passed November 
session, 1781." 

2. '• A list of officers of che Virginia, line on continental establishment, who 
have received certificates for the balance of their full pay, agreeably to an 
act of Assembly, passed November session, 1781." 

3. "A list of soldiers of the Virginia line on continental establishment, 
who have received certificates for the balance of their full i)ay, agreeably to 
an act of Assembly passed November session, 1781." 

These lists were made between the years 1781 and 1790, so far as I call 
learn ; but for what purpose they were made does not appear. 

4 " A list of officers made by the board of Virginia continental officers, 
under orders from Baron Steuben, in Febrnary, 1781." 

This list gives the names of some who were supernumerary; but it con- 
tains no information as to the names or number of those who served to the 
end of the war, but principally a list of those who were retained under the 
arrangement made in 1781. This list was made in 1781, as a part of the 
report of the board of officers, more for the use of those who were retained 
in the service, than for the purpose of showing who had left the army under 
resolutions of Conaress. 

5. " A list of officers, made agreeably to the arrangement of December, 
1782." 

This gives a list of the names of some who desired to retire with the 
emoluments of officers retiring under the acts of Congress of the 3d and 
21st October, 1780, as well as a list of those who made their election to sup- 
ply the places of vacant ensignciivs, retaining their rank and pay, agreeably 
to the resolution of Congress of the llth July, 1782. There is a list of the 



102 Rep. No. 436. 

redundant junior officers of each ^rade. The two last lists were made in 
1782 ; for what purpose, I am unable to say. 

6. " A list of non-commissioned officers and soldiers of the Virginia line 
on continental establishment, whose names appear on the Army Register, and 
who have not received bounty land." 

7. " A list of officers of the Virginia continental and State lines, and State 
navy, whose names appear on the Army Register, and who have not received 
land for revolutionary services at all, or not in the characters in which they 
there appear." 

8. " A list of officers of the army and navy, who have received lands from 
Virginia for revolutionary services, the quantity received, when received, 
the time of service for which each officer received land, &c., down to Sep- 
tember, 1833." 

The three last-mentioned lists, prepared since 1830, are printed, and were 
pubhshed by order, I understand, of the Virginia Legislature ; for what 
particular purpose I am unable to say. 

The second inquiry, " Whether there is another ancient list (correspond- 
ing with the former, so far as relates to the officers) of the officers, non-com- 
missioned officers, and privates, of the Virginia continental line ; and if so, 
at what period, and for what purpose, is such list supposed to have been 
made ?" is answered in the foregoing statement. 

To the third inquiry, '' Whether there is any list remaining of the officers 
of the several regiments of the continental line who died, resigned, or other- 
wise lost their places in the army ; and if not, whetlier the muster and pay 
rolls of the army, or other authentic materials from which such list could be 
made, are now in existence ?" I reply, that there is no complete list of such 
officers, nor can T say positively whether there are in existence the neces- 
sary materials for forming such a list. 'I'he Washington Papers, which 
were purchased some years since, and. deposited in the Department of State, 
contain much information on the subject ; and some information might also 
be obtained from the muster rolls in this office. But 1 cannot give it as my 
opinion that a perfect list could be made from such materials. 

Not possessing the necessary information, it is not in my power to fur- 
nish " a statement of the number of officers of each grade in each branch of 
the service, and of the number of noncommissioned officers and privates 
belonging to the Virginia continental line who are returned as entitled to 
bounty land ;" nor is it in my power to make " a statement of the number 
of officers of each grade in each branch of the service who appear to be en- 
titled to commutation pay." 

I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

.T. L. EDWARDS, 
Commissiontr of Pensions. 

Hon. J. R. Poinsett, Secretary of War. 



No. 11. 



Cumberland Old Court-house, 

September 2, 1782. 
The following is a list of the officers of the Virginia line, who have been 
killed, invalided, resigned, superseded, &c., since the Chesterfield arrange- 
ment, in February, 1781, and not included in a late arrangement at this place 
in May last. 



Rep. No. 436. 



103 



Killed. 



Lieutenant Colonel Campbell, 
Captain A. Wallace, 
Captain C. Oldham, 



Captain John Spotswood, 
Captain Joseph Scott, 



Captain Robert Bell, 
Captain Archibald Denholm, 
Captain James Craine, 
Captain James Culbertson, 
Captain Nathan Lamme, 
Captain Robert Vance, 
Captain George Berry, 
Lieutenant Thomas Burford, 
Lieutenant Elisha King, 
Lieutenant John Townes, 
Lieutenant Andrew Lewis, 
Lieutenant John McDowell, 
Lieutenant Robert Jouett, 
Lieutenant Henry Boyer, 



Ensign John Giles, 
Lieutenant Jonathan Wilson. 
Lieutenant Philip Huffman. 



Invalided. 



Ensign 



Captain Thomas Thweett, 
Captain Robert White. 

Resig?ied. 

Lieutenant William Baylis, 
Ensign William McGuire, 
Ensign John Spitfathom, 
Ensign Andrew Hayes, 
Ensign Spencer Morgan, 

• Ensign William Conner, 
Ensign Thomas Wallace, 
Ensign William Ball, 
Captain Robert Higgins, 
Lieutenant Charles Erskine, 
Lieutenant George Blackmere, 

Ensign Drew, 

Ensigrj Kellery, 

Ensign James Green, 

George Hite. 



Rcseeded [Supersededl] 



Captain Francis Minnis, 
Captain Thomas Ransdell, 
Captain Charles Snead, 
Captain Severn Teagle, 
Captain Willis Reddick, 
Lieutenant Philip Coatney 



Lieutenant Robert Livingston, 
Lieutenant Benjamin Ashby, 
Lieutenant Robert Foster, 
Lieutenant John Barns, 
Ensign John Carr, 
Ensign WiUiam Scott. 



Captain William R— [supposed to be Rogers,] in the year 1778. 
Captain Timothy Feely. 

[This corner of the original paper is lost, except what appears above, 
beginning with the words •' (Captain William R."] 



No. 12. 

Copy of the deed of cession from Virginia to the United States, executed 

March 1, 1784. 

To all who shall see these presents : 

We, Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Hardy, Arthur Lee, and James Monroe, 
the underwritten delegates for the Commonwealth of Virginia, in the Con- 
gress of the United States of America, send greeting : 



104 Hep. No. 436. 

Whereas the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia, at 
their sessions beo-un on tlie twentieth day of October, one thousand seven 
hundred and eighty three, passed an act, entitled " An act to authorize the 
delegates of this State, in Congress, to convey to the United States in Con- 
gress assembled ail the right of this CommonweaUh to the territory north- 
westward of tlie river Ohio," in these words following, to wit : 

"Whereas the Congress of the United States did, by their act of the sixth 
day of September, in the year one thousand seven hundred and eighty, rec- 
ommend to the several States in the Union having claims to waste and 
unappropriated lands in the western country, a liberal cession to the United 
States of a portion of their respective claims, for the common benefit of the 
Union ; And whereas this Commonwealth did, on the second day of Janu- 
ary, in the year one thousand seven hundred and eighty-one, yield to the 
Congress of the United States, for the benefit of the said States, all right, 
title, and claim which the said Commonwealth had to the territory north- 
west of the river Ohio, subject to the conditions annexed to the said act of 
cession: And whereas the United Slates in Congress assembled have, by 
their act of the thirteenth of September- last, stipulated the terms on which 
they agree to accept the cession of tiiis State, should tlie Legislature approve 
thereof; which terms, although they do not come fully up to the proposi- 
tions of this Commonwealth, are conceived, on the whole, to approacii so 
nearly to them as to induce this State to accept thereof, in full confidence 
that Congress will, in justice to this State for the liberal cession she hath 
made, earnestly press upon the other States claiming large tracts of waste 
and uncultivated territory the propriety of making cessions equally liberal, 
for the common benefit and support of the Union : 

" Be it enacted by the General Assembly/, That it shall and may be law- 
ful for the delegates of this Stale to the Congress of the United States, or 
such of them as shall be assembled in Congress, and the said delegates, or 
such of them so assembled, are hereby fidly authorized and empowered, for 
and on behalf of this State, by proper "deeds or instrument in writing, under 
their hands and seals, to convey,transfer, assign, and makeover unto the Uni- 
ted States in Congress assembled, for the benefit of the said States, all right, 
title, and claim, as well of soil as jurisdiction, which this Commonwealth 
hath to the territory or tract of country within the limits of the Virginia 
charter, situate, lying, and being to the northwest of the river Ohio, subject 
to the terms and conditions contained in the before-recited act of Congress 
of the thirteenth day of September last; that is to say, upon condition that 
the territory so ceded shall be laid out and formed into States, contrdning a 
suitable extent of territory, not less than one hundred, nor more than one 
hundred and fifty miles square, or as nciar thereto as circumstances will ad- 
mit; and that the States so formed shall be distinct republican States, and 
admitted members of the Federal Union, having the same rights of sover- 
eignty, freedom, and independence as the other States. That the necessary 
and reasonable expenses incurred by this State in subduing any British 
posts, or in maintaining forts or garrisons within and for the defence, or in 
acquiring any part of Ihe territory so ceded or relinquished, shall be fully 
reimbursed by the United States : and that one commissioner shall be ap- 
pointed by Congress, one by this Commonwealth, and another by those two 
commissioners, who, or a majority of them, shall be authorized and era- 
powered to adjust and liquidate the account of the necessary and reason- 
able expenses incurred by this State, which they shall judge to be com- 



Rep. No. 436. 105 

prised within the intent and meaning of the act of Congress of the tenth of 
October, one (lionstind seven hundred and eio:hty, respecting- such expenses. 
That the French and Canadian inhabitants, and other settlers of the Kas- 
kaskies, St. Vincent's, and the neighboring villages, who have professed 
themselves citizens of Virginia, shall have their possessions and titles confirm- 
ed to them, and be protected in the enjoyment of their rights and liberties. 
That a quantity not exceeding one hundred and fifty thousand acres ot land, 
promised by this State, shaU be allowed and granted to the then Colonel 
(now General) George Rogers Clarke, and to the officers and soldiers ot his 
regiment who marched with him when the posts of Kaskaskies and St. Vin- 
cent's were reduced, and to the officers and soldiers that have been since 
incorporated into the said regiment ; to be laid off in one tract, the length 
of which not to exceed double the breadth, in such place on the iiorlhwest 
side of the Ohio as a majority of the officers shall choose ; and to be after- 
wards divided among the said ofiicers and soldiers, in due proportion, ac- 
cordmg to the laws of Virginia. That in case the quantity of good land on 
the southeast side of the Ohio, upon the waters of Cumberland river, and 
between the Green river and Tennessee river, which have been reserved 
by law for the Virginia troopis upon continental establishment, should, from 
the North Carolina line bearing in further upon the Cumberland lands than 
was expected, prove insufficient for their legal bounties, the deficiency 
should be made up to the said troops, in good lands, to be laid oflT between 
the rivers Scioto and Little Miami, on the northwest side ol the river Ohio, 
in such proportions as have been engaged to them by the laws of Virginia. 
That all the lands within the territory so ceded to the United States, and 
not reserved for, or appropriated to, any of the beforementioned purposes, 
or disposed of in bounties to the officers and soldiers of the American army, 
shall be considered as a common fund for the use and benefit of such of the 
United States as have become, or shall become, members of the confedera- 
tion or federal alliance of the said States, Virginia inclusive, according to 
their usual res|)ertive proportions in the general charge and expenditure, 
and shall be faithfully and bona fide disposed of for that purpose, and for 
no other use or purpose whatsoever : Provided^ That the trust hereby re- 
posed in the delegates of this State shall not be executed, unless three of 
them, at least, are present; in Congress." 

And whereas the said General Assembly, by their resolution of June 
sixth, one ihonsand seven hundred and eighty-three, had constituted and 
appointed us, the said Thomas Jeffersori, Samuel Hardy, Arthur Lee, and 
James Monroe, delegates to represent the said Commonwealth in Congress 
for one year, from the first Monday in November then next following, 
which resolution remains in full force : Now, therefore, know ye, that we, 
the said Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Hardy, Arthur Lee, and James Monroe, 
by virtue of the power and authority committed to us by the act of the 
said General Assembly of Virginia, before recited, and in the ^name and for 
and on behalf of the said Commonwealth, do, by these presents, convey, 
transfer, assign, and make over unto the United States in Congress assem- 
bled, for the benefit of the said States, Virginia inclusive, all right, title, and 
claim, as well of soil as of jurisdiction, which the said Commonwealth 
hath to the territory or tract of country within the limits of the Virginia 
charter, situate, lying, and being to the northwest of the river Ohio, to and 
for the uses and purposes, and on the conditions, of the said recited act. 



/ 



106 Rep. No. 436. 

In testimony whereof, we have hereunto subscribed our names and affix- 
ed our seals, in Congress, the first day of March, in the year of our Lord 
one thousand seven hundred and eighty-four, and of the independence of 
the United States the eighth. 

TH. JEFFERSON, [l. s. 
S. HARDY, [l. s. 

ARTHUR LRE, [l. s. 

JAMES MONROE, [l. s. 
Signed, sealed, and delivered in presence of 

Cha. Thompson, 
Hknry Remsen, jr., 
Ben. Bankson, jr. 



No. 13. 



House of Representatives, January 21, 1840. 

Sir : On Munsell's large map of Kentucky, published in 1S18, the 
boundary lines of the territory set apart by Virginia to satisfy her revolu- 
tionary military land warrants are laid down. The whole tract includes 
all the land in Kentucky lying south and west of Green river, and a line 
running from the source of the same, a southeast course, to the Cumberland 
mountains. 

The division lines which were made by the superintendents of surveys, 
between the continental and State lines of troops, are also marked on the 
map; the land assigned to the continental line being hounded by the riv- 
ers Ohio, Green, and Big Barren, and a line running parallel with the south 
line of the State, to the highlands between the Cumberland and Tennessee 
rivers, and along the said highlands to the Ohio. 

I wish you to ascertain and inform me the quantity of land which ap- 
pears from said map to have been assigned to the troops of the continental 
line ; the quantity assigned to the troops of the State line ; and, also, how 
much of the land assigned to the State line lies east, and how much west, 
of the said highlands that divide the Tennessee from the Cumberland river. 
1 am, sir, verv respectfully, your obedient servant, 

HILAND HALL. 

David H. Burr, Esq., 

Dravghtsman House of Representatives. 



Washington, January 22, 1840. 
Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 
21st instant, asking for an estimate of the quantity of land " set apart by Vir- 
ginia to satisfy her revolutionary military land warrants." 
According to Munsell's map of Kentucky, to which you 
refer, it appears that the territory assigned to the troops 
of the continentalline contains - - - 3,520,000 acres. 

That the territory assigned to the troops of the State line 



Rep. No. 43G. 107 

east of the highlands that divide the Tennessee from (he 
(^nmberland nver contains - - 4,350,000 acres 

And west of the said highlands - 1,858.000 " 

Being for the State line troops - - 6,208,000 acree. 

Total for State and continental lines - 9,728,000 acres. 

I am, with much respect, your obedient servant, 

DAVID H. BURR, 
Draughtsman House of Representatives. 
Hon. HiLAND Hall, 

House of Representatives. 



No. 14. 

Copy of Colonel Taylor^s commission in the convention guards. 

The Commonwealth of Virginia to Francis Taylor, Esq., greeting : 

Know you, that, from the special trust and confidence which is reposed 
in your patriotism, tidelity, courage, and good conduct, you are, by these 
presents, constituted and appointed colonel of the regiment of volunteers 
for guarding the convtntion troops at Charlottesville. You are, therefore, 
carefully and diligently to discharge the duty of colonel of the saidregi- 
mmJ, by doing and performing all manner of things thereunto belonging; 
and you are to pay a ready obedience to all orders and instructions which, 
from time to time, you may receive from the Governor or executive power 
of this State for the time being, or any of your superior officers, agreeable 
to the rules and regulations of the convention or General Assembly. All 
officers and soldiers under your command are hereby strictly charged and 
required to be obedient to your orders, and to aid you in the execution of 
this commission, according to the intent and purpose thereof. 

Witness Patrick Henry, Esquire, Governor or Chief Magistrate of the 
Commonwealth, at Williamsburg, i\\'\^ fifth day oi March ^ in the third ye^LV 
of the Commonwealth. Anno Domini 1779. 

P. HENRY. 

[Notf:. — For the original commission, a printed blank for a commission 
in the militia is used ; the words written with a pen being printed in the 
above copy in italics. In the place of the foregoing words, " of the regi- 
ment of volunteers for guarding the convention troops at Charlottesville ^^^ 
the printed words ^^ of militia in the county of^'' are stricken out. So, also, 
in the place of the words ^^ said regiment,^'' above printed in italics^ the 
word '■'■militia^'' was printed and stricken out.] 



No. 15. 



It has been suggested that the great number of modern allowances of 
Virginia land claims by that State furnishes no ground of suspicion against 



108 Rep. No. 436. 

the validity of the claims, because it is said that the modern allowances by 
the Government of the United States to the troops of the continental army, 
which are admitted to be good, are equally large. The suggestion is be- 
lieved not to rest either on fact or sound argument. 

By resolutions of the old Congress, the officers and soldiers of the conti- 
nental army engaging for and serving during the war, were pronnsed cer- 
tain land boiuities ; and claims for such bounties have been allowed from 
time to time, as tliey were presenled and established, up to the 1st of .fanu- 
ary last. The following letter from the Clerk of the Bounty Land Office 
will show the whole number of allowances by the United States, together 
with the number made since September, 1S2S, at which time a publication 
of the names of those entitled to the bounty was made by order of the Sea- 
ate of the United States: 

Department of War, 
Bounty Land OJice, April 7, 1840. 

Sir : In answer to the inquiries submitted in yours of tlie 4th instant, I 
have the honor to inform you, that it appears by the registers of issues of 
military bounty-land warrants, on file in this office, commencing in the 
year 1789, and continued until the 1st of January, 1840, that there have 
been granted, of such warrants, two thousand seven hundred and sixty-two, 
to commissioned officers ol the line, and of the hospital and medical staff 
of the revolutionary army; and that, within the periods above mentioned, 
there has been granted, of similar warrants, nine thousand six hundred 
and forty-eight, to the non-commissioned officers, musicians, and privates of 
the same army. 

In answer to your inquiry as to " what number of such commissioned 
officers, whose names were returned as entitled to the bounty referred to 
above, have received their warrants for the same since September, 1828," 
1 have to state, that, of those so returned, one hundred and fifty six have re- 
ceived the warrants to which they or then- heirs were entitled ; and to your 
request for " the same inlbrmation in regard to the rank and file of the ar- 
my," I have to state, that the number of warrants issued and delivered to 
the rank and file aforesaid, since the 30th September, 1828, is found to be 
six hundred and thirty-lour; and that, of this number, six hundred and 
fifteen are returned on the records as entitled. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

WM. GORDON. 

Hon. HiLANn Hall, 

House of Representatives. 

From the numbers stated in this letter, it will be found that the allow- 
ances of land bounties to qfjicers, by the United States, since September, 
1828, have been 5^ per cent, on the whole number; and that the allow- 
ances to the rank and Jih, during the same period, have been (H per cent, 
on the whole number; being about six per cent, on the whole number of 
allowances to both officers and men since September, 1S2S. 

In regard to the Virginia bounties, it appears, from the text to which 
this note is appended (page 24), that the quantity of land covered, by all 
the allowances of that State, is 7,120,966 acres ; and that of this quantity, 
1.617,820 acres have been allowed since May, 1830 ; showing an allowance 



Rep. No. 436. 109 

of 22A per cent, on tlie whole quantity since May, 1S30. It also appears, 
by lists of Viroinia warrants fnrnislied by the register of the land office of 
that State, that tlie whole number of allowances to officers has been 1,532; 
and that of those, 398 have been allowed since May, 1830; showing allow- 
ances of 26 per cent, on the whole number of officers since May, 1830. 
It thus appears that the land allowances by Virginia, since May, 1830, have 
been four times as great, in proportion to the whole number, as the allow- 
ances by the United States during the still longer period from September, 
1828, to the present time. 

But the modern allowances of Virgiin'a warrants, instead of being greater, 
ought to have been much less than those of the United States, fur the fol- 
lowing reasons : 

1. The inducement to make early claims for the bounty was much 
stronger in the case of the Virginia bounties than in that of the United 
States, from the important circimistance that the former bounties were 
much the largest. The average amount of the Virginia bounties to officers 
is about 3,500 acres each ; while the average of tlie United States bounties 
to officers does not exceed 250 acres each, being about one fourteentli part 
of the Virginia bounty. The price of land could hardly liave been so low 
at any period as to induce an individual entitled to 3,500 acres to omit to 
claim it in consequence of its little value; whereas such omissions would 
not be unlikely where the quantity was no more than two or three hun- 
dred acres. The prcsumpiion, therefore, that the Virginia claims were 
satisfied at an early day, is much stronger than that the claims against the 
United States were thus satisfied. 

2. This presumption of the early satisfaction of the Virginia claims is 
also increased and strengthened by the fact, that their warrants were more 
conveniently obtained than the United Stales warrants — the former being 
allowed within the Stale where tlie claimants resided ; while the latter were 
allowable only at the seat of the Genaial Government, the claimants being 
scattered throughout all the Slates. 

3. This presumption is still further strengthened by the additional facts, 
that the Virginia warrants were early satisfied on lands lying in Kentucky, 
and on the banks of the Ohio, in the vicinity of Virginia, and to which the 
tide of emigration from Virginia was then rapidly setting; whereas the 
United States bounties could only be satisfied on lands in the interior of 
Ohio, with which a great majority of the continental troops had little means 
of becoming acquainted, and which lands remained unsettled to a much 
later period than did the Virginia bounty lands. 

4. The allowances of United States bounties since September, 1828, 
ought not to be taken as applicable to Virginia allowances ; because, at that 
lime, a publication of the names of those who had been returned entitled, 
was made by order of ihe Senate; thus giving notice to all United States 
unsatisfied claimants to present their claims. But for this publication, the 
allowances since 1828 would have been Tauch less numerous. 

It would seem, therefore, that the presumption against the validity of the 
Virginia bounty land claims, wliicli have been lately allowed, arising from 
their recent presentation, instead of being overthrown by a reference to the 
United States bounty allowances, is, by such reference, strengthened and 
confirmed. 



no Rep. No. 436. 



REPORT OF THE MINORITY. 



Resolved^ That the Committee on Revolutionary Claims be instructed 
to inquire into the character and amount of proof which is required, by- 
existing laws and regulations, to establish claims on the United States for 
revolutionary services in the Virginia continental and State lines and 
navy ; and whether any, and what, further legislative provisions be ne- 
cessary in regard to the mode of adjusting and allowing claims for such 
services; and that the report of a select committee, on the same sub- 
ject, made at the last session, with the papers accompanying said report, 
be referred to said Committee on Revolutionary Claims. 

The Committee on Revolutionary Claims^ to whom the foregoing resolu- 
tion of the House urns referred^ have^ according to order, taken the same 
under consideration, aiid report : 

That, in regard to the first inquiry which the committee are instructed to 
make, namely, " into the character and amount of proof which is recjuir- 
ed, by existing laws and regulations, to establish claims on the United 
States for revolutionary services in the Virginia continental and State 
lines and navy," the committee are not aware that there is any law or 
regulation, as to the character and amount of proof, which applies to the 
adjustment and allowance, by the United States, of the claims in question, 
which does not, to the same extent, apply to the adjustment and allowance 
of the claims of citizens of all the States in the Union, who rendered mili- 
tary service in the army of the United States in the war of the Revolution. 
In the course of that war, positive engagements were made by Congress 
to allow to the officers and soldiers of the continental army land bounty 
and half pay, for stipulated service. And on the repeated recommendation 
of Congress as to the means to carry on the war with vigor, Virginia made 
similar engagements with the officers and men who served in her conti- 
nental and State lines and corps, and State navy. At the time these en- 
gagements were made by the United States and the State of Virginia, no 
law was passed, nor was any regulation made, prescribing the character 
and amount of proof which would be required to establish claims to the 
land and pay stipulated to be paid for prescribed service to be performed 
by the claimants ; nor has any law, known to the committee, been passed 
making such prescription. When the war ended, the Secretary of War was 
directed to allow land to all who were entitled, on the evidence of the 
army returns, and on such other sufficient evidence as the nature of the case 
would admit, (see journals of Congress 26th of April, 1785, directing on 
what evidence land warrants should issue ;) and the same rule was made 
applicable to the allowance of pay. It is by this rule, the committee be- 
lieve, that all the claims in question have been adjusted from the close of 
the war to the present time. As Congress is the only judicial tribunal 
known to the constitution to decide claims of individuals on the Govern- 
ment, in the discharge of that function it has been, as it surely should 



Rep. No. 436. Ill 

be always governed by the established rules of evidence in other judicial 
tribunals. The committee are aware that a change of this rule has been 
recently urged, by some who insist that the claims in question ought not 
to be allowed, except on record evidence of their validity. It must be 
obvious that such a requisition as this would do great injustice to many ; 
and it would be strange indeed, now, that nearly all these records are de- 
stroyed, to make the evidence to be found in the few relics of more avail 
than when they were in a full state of preservation. Such a rule of evi- 
dence might at first have made, as it would now, short work of all miU- 
tary claims on the Government. The destruction of all the army records, 
whether by design or accident, would have put an end to these claims. 
That the preservation of these records was important to the Government, 
is obvious ; and it is as obvious that their destruction has occasioned 
many valid claims to remain unsatisfied. 

In regard to the second inquiry to be made, the committee are not 
aware that any additional legislation is necessary for the adjustment of 
the claims in question, while Congress continues to act judicially on them. 
The committee can hardly entertain a doubt that Congress will, as here- 
tofore, provide suitably for all claims to bounty land and commutation 
pay, which shall be ascertained to be justly due and unsatisfied. 

In obedience to instructions, the committee have examined and con- 
sidered the report of the select committee made at the last session. That 
report, with considerable addenda, made by a member of this committee, 
who was chairman of the select committee, is elaborate and unusually 
voluminous for such a production — too much so, to admit of a satisfactory 
review of it by one who, in addition to other public duties, is a member 
of two of the most laborious committees of the House. All that can be 
done, is to attempt to correct the erroneous conclusions in the report, de- 
duced, as it is respectfully believed, fi*om unfounded assumptions of fact 
and numerical estimates. And in attempting this, more cannot be done, 
in the time allotted, than to notice some of the prominent objections con- 
tained in the report to the validity of the existing claims to Virginia military 
land bounty. It is assumed in the report of the select committee, that all the 
existing claims to Virginia land bounty are spurious, otherwise they would 
have been applied for in a reasonable time after the war was over. Thus, 
making the omission to apply for a claim, no matter how justly due, con- 
clusive evidence against its validity; not taking into consideration all, if 
any, of the many good and sufficient causes of delay, such as the death of 
the clziimant ; his ignorance of his claim, or the manner of obtaining it ; 
remoteness fi^om the land ofiice, and the little value of the warrant ; but, 
most of all, the suspension of locations by authority of an act of the Vir- 
ginia Assembly, which was followed by the treaty of Hopewell, which so 
narrowed down the district set apart for these locations, as that all the 
good land in the Virginia reserve, not embraced in the treaty of Hopewell 
for the use and occupancy of the Indians, was exhausted by the year 1788. 
(See the report of the commissioners appointed to locate these warrants.) 
Much labor seems to have been bestowed on that part of the report of the 
select committee which assumes that, notwithstanding this curtailment 
of the Virginia military reserve, a sufficient quantity of land remained 
to satisfy the bounties due to the Virginia State line and navy ; and this 
is assumed on the ground that the treaty of Hopewell included but a 
small portion of the land assigned to the State line and navy. In making 



112 Rep. No. 436. 

this assumption, the report omits to notice some things which deserved 
consideration. It is nowhere mentioned in the report that Virginia en- 
gaged to grant to her officers and men §-oof/ land j and while the report sets 
forth with critical accuracy the boundaries embracing millions of acres to 
satisfy these claims, it omits to estimate how many millions of acres in 
that large area are wholly worthless. It omits even to intimate that this 
well-described district embraces vast regions of mountains, extensive 
barrens, and morasses ; and that, owing to these causes, and after the 
treaty of Hopewell, continental warrants were located in this region, by 
means of which all the good land was exhausted by the year 1788. As 
evidence further of this, when this surplus fell to Kentucky in the year 
181 8, it sold with difficulty at 25 cents an acre, and vast regions of it re- 
main unsaleable now. It therefore may be affirmed, to say no more, that 
from the year 1788 there was no good land remaining to satisfy these 
warrants. But if delay to make application for Virginia land warrants can 
be seriously urged as evidence of the invalidity of a claim to them, why 
is not the same objection made to the allowance of United States land 
bounty? No impediment has stood in the way of these claims since the 
war ended ; they have been paid on demand ; yet on the 1st of January, 
1830, there were 3,146 officers and men, who by the army returns are 
entitled to United States land bounty, who had not then clauned it. Of 
these, 894 have since been allowed warrants ; leaving still 2,252 unclaimed 
and unsatisfied, though their claims are valid, on authority not to be ques- 
tioned, except on the plea of delay. Such a plea would derogate from the 
character oF the Government, especially in a transaction with men to 
whom the Government owes its existence. 

The report of the select committee charges that land bounty has been 
allowed by the authorities of Virginia with great improvidence, and a cul- 
pable disregard of the interest of the United States ; and, to sustain these 
charges, certain documents are relied on, professing to be arrangements 
of the officers of the Virginia line on continental establishment. These 
arrangements were made in the years 1781 and 1782, as their dates will 
show ; and by boards of officers hastily convened in time of war, under 
circumstances necessarily involving them in mistakes, to a considerable 
extent. The officers were nequired to appear before these boards, in 
order to ascertain who were ini service and who were supernumerary ; and 
those who did not appear were to be returned as superseded and out of 
service. To many of the offijjers, such a requisition was impracticable : 
some of them were in service in distant parts of the Union ; and that 
large class of supernumerary officers who had returned to their homes, 
were scattered in all parts of tpe State, and many of them had gone into 
other States. Under these ciipumstances, it must be obvious that many 
mistakes were made in the returns entered on these arrangements. In 
the absence of the non-attenjiing officers, some were returned, on the 
best information the board could obtain, resigned, or superseded,, who, in 
fact, were either in actual service or supernumerary. But what illus- 
trates the imperfection of thpse proceedings, is the case of Alexander 
Dick. (See appendix No. l.)i 

Now, if the board of officers were ignorant of the true character of 
their own members, as they manifestly were in the case of Major Dick, 
it may be well questioned whether they could be well informed in regard 
to many who were necessarily absent. Such is the history of those ar- 



Rep. No. 436. 113 

rangements ; so that, whatever authority age may have imparted to these 
remnants of the army records, at their birth they were loudly complained 
of, and universally considered grossly erroneous. To free the Executive 
Council of Virginia from the apparent inconsistency, alleged in the report, 
of allowing claims not sanctioned by these arrangements, it is proper to 
state that they were lost very shortly after the war, and it was about forty- 
four years before they were accidentally discovered. In the mean time, 
the claims, referred to in the report, have been decided by the Executive 
of Virginia on such evidence as appeared satisfactory, without reference 
to these lost documents, which, if present, could only be considered as 
prima facie evidence. Assuming, as the report does, on the foregoing 
premises, that large allowances of land have been erroneously granted, 
the conclusion is, that no further provision ought to be made for such as 
are now due. Admitting that unfounded claims have been allowed, (as, 
in the nature of the case, is almost unavoidable,) the committee cannot see 
in this just cause for the disallowance of a bona fide claim. It may be 
assumed, as a general position, that a Government will always do what it 
ought to do, and that it ought to abide by the same established rules of 
justice which regulate the affairs of individuals. 

Much is said, and many considerations are urged, in the report, to show 
that, even though there be valid claims to military land bounty against 
Virginia, the United States are in no manner bound to provide for them. 
To carry out this proposition, would involve a violation of positive engage- 
ment and good faith wholly unknown, and never sanctioned by our Gov- 
ernment. Pending the war of the Revolution, the State of^irginia en- 
gaged, on the urgent recommendation of Congress, to allow the land 
bounty in question to her officers and soldiers. For a compliance with 
this engagement, the State pledged her entire western domain, thus cre- 
ating an equitable lien on that immense region, covered now by four 
States and two extensive Territories. At the close of the war, Virginia 
again, on the urgent appeal of Congress, surrendered to the United States 
her entire domain, a great portion of which had been conquered by 
her own unaided means, north and west of the river Ohio ; out 
of which the States of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Michigan, and the 
Territories of Wiskonsin and Iowa, have been formed. At the time 
of makmg this cession, Virginia reserved, by probable estimate, as much 
land on the southeast side of the river Ohio as was deemed sufficient 
to satisfy the land to be allowed to her oficers and soldiers on her con- 
tinental and State establishment, and of her navy. And, in the ful- 
ness of caution, a reservation was made in her deed of cession to the 
United States, providing, that in the event of a deficiency of good land 
on the southeast side of the river Ohio tc satisfy the bounty due to the 
officers and soldiers on her continental establishment, the deficiency was 
to be made up by Congress in lands between the Scioto and Miami rivers. 
Such is the deed from Virginia to the United States ; but there is evidence 
to establish in a court of equity, that the proviso in the deed was de- 
signed to extend to the Virginia State line and navy, as well as to the 
continental line ; such it can be proven was the tenor of the original 
terms proposed by Virginia. And what corroborates this is the notorious 
fact, that during the whole war Virginia most scrupulously avoided any 
discrimination as to pay, land bounty, &c. &c. between her continental 
and State troops. It can therefore hardly be imagined, in looking to an 
8 



114 Rep. No. 436. 

ultimate provision, she would designedly make such a distinction. Nor 
can it be reasonably supposed that Congress could have objected to the 
contingent provision for the State as well as the continental troops, 
seeing it was connected with so vast and liberal a cession of territory. 
Independent of the equitable obligation of the United States to provide 
for these claims to land bounty, it is a debt incurred by Virginia in the 
prosecution of the war of the Revolution, which, by the act of Congress 
of 1790, the United States became bound and engaged to pay. Influ- 
enced by all these considerations. Congress, after mature consideration, 
assumed to provide for these claims, as will be seen by the act of May, 
1830, and other subsequent acts ; in pursuance of which more than three- 
fourths of them have been satisfied. This, therefore, the committee con- 
sider as res adjudicata, and no longer a matter to be settled. 

[See report of Knox, American State Papers, Military Aflairs, vol. 1, pages 
14 and 15.] 

The report of the select committee begins with quoting the various Vir- 
ginia laws which granted land bounty and half pay ; but it omits the fol- 
lowing, viz : 

1st. The act giving land bounty to chaplains, surgeons, and surgeon's 
mates : (see 10th volume Hening, page 141, for this act.) Under this, up- 
wards of half a million allowed. 

2d. It omits the joint resolution giving land to all Virginians in the 
service of Congress, though not in the Virginia line : (same volume, puge 
539.) Under this act, the records in the Virginia laud office will show that 
a vast number drew land bounty. Also, the act putting the navy on the 
same footing with the army, which brought all Virginians under the opera- 
tion of the above joint resolujion : (see 10th volume Hening, page 467; 
and 11th volume, pages 84, 85, aud 161.) 

3d. It omits the act passed 2d of January, 1782, allowing Virginians 
promoted in the lines of other Jltates, land bounty : (see 10th Hening, page 
466, last clause of the 9ih secti)n.) 

4th. It omits, also, the resdlution of Congress of October, 1780, (see 
Journals of Congress, volume pd, page 533,) assigning the officers of the 
cavalry, artillery, and artificer^ as they then stood arranged, to the States 
to which they had been assigned, and crediting such States with those offi- 
cers. Under this resolution, luany officers of other States became entitled 
to land bounty, as officers in a |Vliginia regiment, particularly in Harrison's 
artillery regiment. i 

5th. The report attempts to sjiovv that Chief Justice Marshall, with whom 
General Porterfield agreed, coi^ld never have ?neant that there were five 
hundred entitled to land bount^ from all the Virginia regiments. The an- 
swer to this is, the known fact [hat the statement of Mr. Marshall referred 
to was obtained for a committep of the Virginia Assembly, then acting on 
that very subject, and he was then on the spot, and saw the use which was 
made of his statement. No onp who knew Mr. Marshall can suppose that 
he would look silently on, and permit so gross a perversion of his meaning 
as the report alleges the committee to have made. 

6th. The report states, that though sixteen Virginia continental regi- 
ments were ordered to be raised, no more than six or seven were ever 
raised. This is a mere assumption, without authority to sustain it. Fif- 
teen regiments of infantry, and Harrison's regiment of artillery, were acta- 



Rep. No. 436. , 115 

ally raised, as a proper attention to the army records and the history of the 
war will show. 

7th. The report gives a table, purporting to be taken from the report of 
General Knox, which states that the 5,744 men for 1777, from Virginia, in- 
cluded those for one year, eighteen months, &c.; &c. The report of Knox 
expressly states that there were 5,744 men for three years, or during the 
war, besides the miliiia. These were sufficient for twelve regiments, 
though the author of the report in question expressed the belief that six or 
seven regiments were the most that ever were raised. But the reasoning 
in the report on this point is artificial, and based on suppositions unsus- 
taint-d by evidence. And what is conclusive in support of the statement of 
Mr. Marshall, is, the foct that there now exists a full roll of the 12th Vir- 
ginia regiment. On that roll are forty-two officers, thirty of whom were 
entitled to and received land bounty, and about 546 men, who were entitled 
to land. This is the only full roll now to be had. Make this regiment 
(the 12th) the criterion, and all the estimates of the Virginia committee are 
fully sustained. 

8th. The report not only omits many material laws of Virginia, bearing 
directly on the subject which it professes to examine and illustrate, but it 
also omits numerous regiments and corps that ought to have been included, 
even under the laws it did refer to. It omits, 1st, Lee's legion ; 2d, Armand's 
corps; 3d, Stephensoii's riile regiment, (two-thirds of which were officered 
and raised in Virginia ;) 4ih, the officers of the regiment of guards ; 5lh, 
officers transferred from other States to Virginia under a resolution of Con- 
gress ; Gth, all Virginia officers in the service of Congress, by land or sea; 
7th, Colonel Bland's regiment of cavalry, and many other corps which 
could be enumerated. But sufficient is exhibited to show the erroneous as- 
sumptions and conclusions of the report. 

9th. The report professes to show that, of the 5,744 men for the year 
1777, not many could have been entitled to land, as there were only 2,486 
in 1780, when the three years could not have expired. The error in this 
estimate is, that no notice is taken of the 6,181 men who were in the ser- 
vice in 1776, and by inattention to the fact that Knox's return, of necessity, 
had reference to the end of the years : so tliat every man of the 5,744 may 
have served three years and left the army, entitled to land, prior to the re- 
turn made by Knox for the year 1780, and without including one in the 
2,486 in service at the time of that report. Again : many of the 6,181 men 
in service in the year 1776 must have been disabled or killed in the severe 
confficts of 1777, 1778, 1779, and 1780, all entitled to land. One entire 
regiment was annihilated in the battle at Germantown, and was immedi- 
ately substituted by the assignment of Gibson's, then a State regiment, to 
the continental service : (see acts of the Virginia Assembly and of Congress, 
as to this.) But the return of Knox shows 5,744 men in service in the 
year 1777, every one of whom was entitled to land, unless he deserted. 
This is double the whole number of Virginia continental troops estimated 
by the report to be entitled to land during the entire eight years' war ! 

10th. The report assumes 3,000 to be a liberal allowance of continental 
troops entitled to land ; and, adopting the ratio of the Virginia committee, it 
gives 1,312 to the State line and navy. 

By reference to the records in the Virginia land office, it will appear that 
6,444 persons have received land bounty ; and the report of J. H. Smith, 
Esq., specially appointed to examine a very large mass of papers relating 



116 Rep. No. 436. 

to the war of the Revolution, shows 6,000 more who have not received 
land, and who (most of them) appear, by the papers submitted to his exam- 
ination, to be entitled to it. But the certificate of Indole Marshall, and the 
data furnished by the roll of the 12th regiment, show that there were more 
than 8,000 men entitled to Virginia land bounty. It has been ascertained by 
subsequent investigation into the claims of the Virginia State line and navy 
to land bounty, that the Virginia committee, as is intimated on the face of the 
report of that committee, made too low an estimate of tlie extent of that 
claim, by a large amount. The report above referred to omits the 1st and 2d 
State regiments, so called ; the State artillery regiment. Colonel Marshall ; 
the State garrison regiment. Colonel Muter ; the State cavalry — several 
corps; the Illinois regiment; Colonel Crockett's regiment; besides many 
corps attached to these several regiments. And the State navy may be as- 
sumed to be equal to three regiments. In 1835, Commissioner Smith, above 
referred to, reported 478 of the State navy entitled, by authentic documents, 
to land, but who had not received it ; to say nothing of many who became 
entitled, but whose claims conid not be established by documentary evidence. 
By an act of the Virginia Assembly, 1,300 seamen were at one time ordered 
to be raised, to serve three years, or during the war, (see volume 9, page 196, 
Hening's Statutes.) These data furnish at least 5,000 men in the Virginia 
State line and navy entitled to land ; sixteen continental regiments, at 500 
each, 8,000 ; seven State regiments, including Crockett's and the Illinois, 
3,500 ; navy, equal to three regiments, 1,500 : amountuig, in all, to 13,000 : 
besides the omitted classes — say Lee's legion, Armand's corps, Bland's regi- 
ment of cavalry, Virginians in the service of Congress, and the like. Compare 
all this with the assumption in the report of the select committee ; and can it 
be considered at all justifiable to assume, as that report does, that 3,000 would 
be a liberal estimate of the number of me"i entitled to Virginia continental 
land bounty, and that 1,312 only of the State line and navy are entitled to 
State bounty ? thus, making an; aggregate of all who became entitled to 
land amount to the inconsiderable number of 4,312. 

11th. It is suggested, in the jeport of the select committee, as a strong 
presumption against the merit hi' the existing claims to Virginia military 
land bounty, that, seeing the lar^e bounties promised, especially to officers, 
all entitled are presumed to hs^ve applied for and obtained their warrants 
immediately on the close of the )ivar. 

In point of fiict, 804 officers, (nearly double the number estimated in the 
report as entitled,) did receive tneir warrants within about one year after 
peace ; and these warrants werebbtained at a time, and under circumstan- 
ces, when no one not entitled iould be presumed to obtain them. As to 
the imputation cast upon the merits of these claims, that they have remain- 
ed dormant such a length of time, a few facts must redeem them from that 
objection. The low price of Und warrants then — often as low as 6|- 
cents, and never more than 124 cents an acre — and the heavy expense 
(never less than half the subject) attending their location in a wilderness oc- 
cupied by hostile Indians, induced many, very many, living at a great dis- 
tance from the land office, to belindifferent as to an immediate attention to 
their claims. Be it rememberer, that was not the palmy day of railroads 
and steamboats; nor did the mail then fly, as now, on the wings of the 
wind, in every direction, to the remotest corner of this extensive Uniow. No : 
whoever had busmess at the seat of Government had a tedious, laborious, 
and expensive journey to make, either on horseback or on foot : in pursuit 



Rep. No. 436. 117 

then, of cTlaiid warrant of such inconsiderable value, few would go. This 
accounts for tardiness of application. But a suspension of the location of 
these warrants by an order of the Government of Virginia in 17S5, in order 
to avert Indian hostilities from Kentucky, withiu which the lands to be lo- 
cated were — Ibllowed by the treaty of Hopewell, made by Congress with 
the Indians, which secured to the latter the possession of the lands set apart to 
satisfy these claims to land — left not an acre of good land, as has been 
Slated, on which these warrants could be located, from some time in the year 
1788, to the year 1830, when Congress made the first appropriation to pro- 
vide for them. Hence the apparent neglect to make application. Can it be 
matter of surprise to any one, that, under all the foregoing circumstances, 
many of those claims should now remain unsatisfied ? Owing to this inter- 
dict to the location, and a deficit of good land, many of the warrants which 
were issued could not be located, and were finally lost. And it might be 
safe to say, that the warrants lost, and the bona fide dormant claims which 
cannot be established for the want of that rigorous evidence of claim now 
required, would more than double the amount of any unfounded claims 
which may have been allowed, and about which the report of the com- 
mittee and others make such loud complaint. 

12th. It is insisted, in the report of tiie committee, that supernumeraries are 
not entitled to land. As respects the continental line of the army, the laws on 
that subject, and the uniform action of the Government, allow land to super- 
numeraries. As respects claimants of that description to Virginia conti- 
nental or Slate land bounty, it has been accorded to them by the highest 
judicial sanction, and acquiesced in by Congress. 

ISth. The report of the committee assumes that two or three officers, be- 
sides those retained in service at the reduction in 1778, were all who were 
entitled to land, as they could not have served three years. And it allows 
29 officers to each of the 11 regiments retained in service in 1778, as the 
maximum number entitled to land. 

lu making these estimates on the first assumption, no allowance is made 
for such as had been killed in battle prior to that reduction ; for such as 
had been disabled by wounds and disease, or who had died of disease ; and 
for invalids and prisoners : these amounted to a considerable number, and 
all were entitled to land. 

Again, the estimate allowing 29 ofiiccrs to each of the 11 regiments 
is erroneous in this: it omits staff officers; all engaged in the recruiting 
service; ail the prisoners; and those allowed by the commander-in-chief 
to go home without resigning. The 12th regiment has a roll of 42 officers ; 
and one of the State regiments had 46 officers. Take these as an average, 
and it adds about fifty per cent, to the estimate of the committee. As a cor- 
roboration of the estimate made by the committee, the number of resigna- 
tions spoken of in a letter of General Washington is referred to, and relied 
on. A little attention to the matter will show the irrelevancy of this. It 
is true, many resignations took place ; but it is equally true, that as often as 
vacancies occurred, they were filled by those who succeeded to the claim 
to land which would have enured to their predecessors. The report as- 
sumes 319 as the probable number, and 4lS as the highest possible number 
who could he entitled to land. The records of the land office show 
that, within a year after the close of the war, 3,000 persons received land 
bounty ; of these, 804 were officers, of whom 575 were of the continental 
line. It is hard to presume that any unfounded claims could have been 
admitted then. Such are the facts of the case, opposed to the suppositions 



118 Rep. No. 43G. 

and assumptions of the committee, nnsiistained by evidence, based on un- 
founded data, and sustained by the most artificial reasoning. The repori 
insists that more than 418 officers could not, by possibihty, be entitled to 
land ; yet the records show that 575 received it within one year irom the 
end of the war — at a period, and, as has been said, under circumstances 
which forbid the idea that any one could have received it who was not en- 
titled. So much for this assumption of the committee. The errors in the 
report consist, in part, in the omission to notice many of the laws of Vir- 
ginia allowing land bounty ; and in the omission of many classes, regiments, 
and corps, the officers of wliich became entitled to land bounty chiefly 
imder the omitted laws, as heretofore referred to, viz r Harrison's artillery 
regiment had 8U officers; the report estimates no more than 29. 

The omissions referred to are — 

1st. Staff officers— more than 500,000 acres drawn under the act. (10th 
vol. Hening, page 141.) 

2d. All Virginians in the service of Congress; (10th vol. Hening, page 
539 :) this was a numerous class. Navy the same. (Hen. vol. 10. page 
467 ; and vol. 11, pages 84, 85, and 161.) 

3d, Virginians promoted into the lines of other States. (Hening 10, page 
466 ; last clause of the ninth seclion.) 

4th. Officers of other States trtinsferred to tlie Virginia line. (See resa- 
lution of Congress of 3d October, 1780 — Journals of Consfrcss, vol. 3, page 
533.) 

5th. The officers credited to Virginia, viz : 1st, Lee's legion; 2d, Ar- 
mand's corps ; 3d, Colonel Stephetison's rifle regiment — two-thirds of which 
was raised in Virginia, and went to Canada in 1776 ; 4th. the regiment of 
guards : 5th, two State regiments omitted — the estimate being five, instead 
of seven ; 6th, navy estimated at one regiment, instead of three at the least, 

6th. All superninneraries whodid not resign before three years' service. 

7th, All who died in service; nil prisoners; all soldiers who were pro- 
moted towards the close and dm-ing the progress of the war. Though 
some of these classes are alludecj to in the body of the report, they are not 
taken into the estimate when theconclusion is made that not more than 418 
continental officers could, by posbibility, be entitled to Virginia land bounty, 

8th, The report assumes eleven as the full number of continental regi- 
ments, and allows twenty-nine Wlicers to each. There were fifteen regi- 
ments officered. Fifteen of infaiitry were, in 1778, reduced to eleven ; but 
this reduction did not embrace t\]e artillery regiment, Baylor's cavaliy, and 
the officers of the four reduced regiments, who were all entitled to land 
bounty. 

That the estimate of the numlinr of Virginia officers, assumed in the re- 
port of the select committee, is erroneous, will manifestly appear hy a 
reference to the number and character of those officers who received land 
at the close of the war. These were, besides the commander in chief, 2 
major generals, 1 1 brigadiers, in the arm}'", of whom ten received land within 
a few months after the close of the war. Virginia had 39 colonels and 47 
lieutenant colonels — 86 in all, of whom 62 received land within a year after 
the close of the war. INow, the single fact that Virginia had 14 generals, 
and 86 colonels and lieutenant colonels, shows conclusivelv that her forces 
must have exceeded vastly the number estimated in the report of the com- 
mittee, which estimate forms the basis of the speculative reasoning and re- 
sults exhibited in that document. It is not assumed, nor intended to be 



Rep. No. 436. ' 119 

claimed, that Virginia had, at any one time, as many ofRcers in actual ser- 
vice as are above estimated. Some were killed ; some were prisoners ; some 
became supernumerary ; and some resigned after three years' service : all, 
nevertheless, entitled to Virginia land bounty. The same casualties apply 
to the inferior officers, whose numerical proportion to the colonels could not 
have been less than forty to one, estimating ten companies to a regiment, 
and four officers to each. In truth, the number of inferior officers, from 
greater exposure to hardship and danger, who were killed, died in service, 
invahds, prisoners, &c., was, it is fair to conclude, much beyond a mere nu- 
merical proportion, compared with the generals and colonels ; yet, if even 
this rule be adopted, and 43 be taken as the medium between colonels and 
lieutenant colonels, that number multiplied by 40, and it exhibits 1,720 ofR- 
cers of the continental and State lines, who would be entitled to land ; inde- 
pendent of the navy, which had a largernumber of officers, in proportion to 
the men, than the lines in the land service had, from the fact that the war- 
rant ofRcers in the navy, ranking with the subalterns on the land, were very 
numerous : these all were entitled to land. 

There were, as has been stated, fifteen Virginia continental regiments of 
inflmtry, all the ofRcers of which, reduced or not, were entitled to land. 
Bland's cavalry regiment; Harrison's artillery regiment, equal in officers to 
two infantry regiments; Stephenson's regiment; the regiment of guards ; 
Lee's legion; Armand's corps ; the State legion : in all, equal to five regi- 
ments. To which is to be added, all those in the service of Congress, 
either in the army or navy ; equal, at least, to five regiments more — making 
an aggregate of 25 regiments. Taking, then, 40 officers as the average 
number to each of these 25 regfiments — and 42 is the number on the roll of 
the twelfth regiment — and in assuming 40 as the average, all are included 
who died, invalids, prisoners, supernumeraries, and those resigned, who 
served three years: it shows 1,000 officers, besides general and staff offi- 
cers, amountino, at the. least, to 100; in all, 1. 100 entitled to Virginia conti- 
nental land bounty ; and of these, 976 only have received it, leaving 124 
unsatisfied.! The report of the committee assumes that the number of 
changes from death, resignations, &c., (fcc, could not amount to many, 
seeina: there appeared to be so many who had served over six years, and 
to the end of the war ; thus showing thev had left no vacancies from the 
beginning, to be filled. 

In assuming this, the following facts are overlooked : 1st. That all super- 
numeraries, whether of 1778, or any other period, and all the reduced and 
retiring officers, were entitled to land, as if in service at the end of the war. 
2d. All who died or were killed received the same as if in service at the 
end of the war. 3d. All who, having served as privates or non-commis- 
sioned ofRcers, and afterwards were promoted and commissioned, (and there 
were many such.) were allowed land as officers from their first service, to 
the end of the war, though they misrht have been officers a few months 
only prior to the close of the war. These three classes (and they were all 
numerous) are to be deducted from the number of those assumed in the 
report as bavins: left no vacancies. The large grants of land already is- 
sued in satisfaction of these bounties is more than intimated in the report 
as evidence of error in allowing those grants. These large grants, in the 
aggregate, are to be accounted for by the very liberal bounties allowed, 
both to officers and soldiers, in pursuance of repeated appeals by the 
commander-in-chief and by Congress to the patriotism and generosity of 



120 ' Rep. No. 436. 

the several States, to make ample provision for the army at the close of the 
war — to the end of insuring a vigorous prosecution of it. But those times- 
are, by too many, forgotten ; and few now seem to take into tlie estimate 
that the land thus granted was the price, in part, paid for tliat Uberty and 
independence they now enjoy. It was under these circnmstances that 
Virginia allowed a major general 15,000 acres, brigadier general 10,000, 
colonel 6,606|, lieutenant colonel 6,000, chaplain 0,000, surgeon 6,000, 
major 5,333, captain 4,000, subalterns, each, 2,666|, besides one sixth for 
each year in addition to the above, lor service over six years ; and, under 
this provision, many received as much as half, in addition to the above 
bounties. Sufficient has been stated to correct many of the prominent 
errors in the report of the select committee, and to justify the committee 
of the Virginia Assembly against all the material charges against their 
report. Sufficientj it is confidently believed, has been adduced to show 
that many just claims to Virginia military land bounty remain unsatisfied ; 
and the demand on Congress to make provision for the satisfaction of 
all such claims as can be shown to be valid, is unquestionable. This is 
a debt contracted by Virginia in the prosecution of the revolutionary war, 
and, as has been remarked, at the repeated solicitation of Congress ; and 
if no other consideration could be urged, the act of Congress, called the as- 
sumption act, is sufficient to demonstrate the claim of Virginia on Con- 
gress to provide for these land bounties. By that act, Congress assumed 
to pay all the debts of the several States, contracted by each in the prose- 
cution of the war, and is thereby justly bound to pay this. 

But it is alleged in the report of the committee, that Congress has already 
given scrip for more than all thejUnappropriated land between the Scioto 
and Miami; that, therefore, no further claim can be properly made on 
Congress, as that land only was reserved. Here the committee err, in tak- 
ing no proper notice of that extensive region of land set apart by Virginia, 
west of the Tennessee river. Tf(is, if added to the lands set apart between 
the Scioto and Miami, would have been an ample quantity of land to satisfy 
all the engagements of Virginia to all her troops. Of this her troops have 
been deprived by the treaty of Hopewell, and no equivalent has been pro- 
vided. Agam : Virginia, having^ as has been shown, promised large boun- 
ties to her troops, did, by an act of her Legislature, in 178-2, pledge all her 
western lands to satisfy those bounties ; thus creating an equitable lien on 
lier entire domain. Afterwards, Virginia gave all this domain to Congress, 
making the reservations above rejferred to ; and it may be justly asked. Can 
the second donee, in conscience, hold to the gift, to the exclusion of the 
officers and soldiers? The queslion, then, now to be settled, is. Do any of 
these claims, appearing justly due, remain unsatisfied? If so, it is confi- 
dently expected that Congress will, as a m.atter of justice, provide for the 
satisfaction of all such. It is strongly intimated in the report of tiie com- 
mittee, that land bounty has been allowed by the authorities of Virginia 
improvidently, and to large amomit, to many not entitled. A ie,\v cases 
out of the thousands acted on may be selected to give color to this allega- 
tion, which, if true to its utmost extent, would be an atom, compared with 
the omission to grant bounties, in land and pay justly due, to a very large 
amoinit, by those authorities. Ha'f pay for life was promised by Virginia 
to all her officers who became deranged by the reduction of the army, at 
any period of the war. (See act of Virginia Assembly, May, 1779.) Yet 
not one of these officers who were reduced prior to May, 1779, has, to 



Rep. No. 436. 121 

this day, received that pay. And by an act ot Assembly of — (see Hening) 
Virginia promised 100 acres additional land bounty, and $200, to be paid 
in specie, at the end of the war, to all her soldiers who should serve to the 
end of the war in the continental line. Though thousands became entitled 
to these bounties, not a man has received them. Does this wear the ap- 
pearaLce of improvidence, or a design on the part of the Virginia authori- 
ties to extend the amount of these claims beyond what was considered 
justly due? Certainly not. 

But the antiquity of these claims, and that many of them have fallen into 
the hands of speculators, are urged in the report, and elsewhere, as insu- 
perable grounds of objection to the payment of them. A violation of the 
contract on which those claims are founded, by the Government, is the 
cause both of their antiquity, and that many of them fell into the hands of 
speculators. The Government agreed to pay specie in discharge ot them ; 
but, instead of specie, all the means for payment consisted of bonds, so de- 
preciated and worthless, that many claimants either would not receive 
them, or would not incur the trouble and expense of applying for them. 
So that, in all this business, the Government was the parent of the specu- 
lations now so severely denounced. But it is said that a full and fair op- 
portunity was afforded by the Government to the claiiuants to liquidate 
their claims at the close of the war ; that, after the close of the war, com- 
missioners were appointed in each State for that object. True, such com- 
missioners were appointed; but to do what? Why, to perform a mere 
mockery. It was only to ascertain what was due to the individual, and to 
send him off with a bond, which would often not defray his expenses in 
seeking this full and fair opportunity afforded him to receive payment of 
his claim. There is no one, acquamted with the history of that period, 
who will not aflirm that the public bonds, then issued m discharge of revo- 
lutionary claims, were not nearly as worthless as the millions of paper- 
money was, just then defunct. And there was a prevailing opinion that no 
better provision could ever be made for tiiese bonds (called certificates of 
debt,) than had been made to redeem paper-money. Such was the full and 
fair opportunity said to have been afforded. And to this were added statutes 
of limitation, which barred these claims more than thirty years; and now 
it is their antiquity is a reproach, and furnishes with many a sufficient 
reason to reject them. 

The application to Congress to provide for the unsatisfied land bounty is 
not, as the report assumes, an appeal to the benevolence of that body. It is 
not asked as a gratuity, but it is an appeal to the justice of Congress. The 
reservation in Ohio, to satisfy these land warrants, never belonged to Con- 
gress. It is reserved by the deed of gift of Virginia ; and Congress should 
take no credit to itself for any locations therein made ; it never had a right 
to prohibit them. The application, then, of Virginia to Congress, is, that as 
the former owes on account of the revolutionary war more land than was 
reserved in the deed of cession to the latter — as the latter has received the 
consideration of the debt, and has got from the former, by donation, the 
means of paying that debt — can it be questioned but that a sufficient portion 
of those means should be devoted to extinguish that debt? 

It is insisted, in the report of the select committee, that the officers at- 
tached to the regiment of guards raised in Virginia in 1779, and those at- 
tached to tlie regiiuent under Colonel George Gibson, were not continental 
officers in the line of the army, and, therefore, not entitled to United States 



122 . Rep. No. 436. 

land bounty and pay; and this is urged on the ground that land bounty 
and half pay were promised to such oflicers only as were commissioned by 
Congress, whereas these were commissioned by the Governor of Virginia. 
The maxim, qnifacitper alium^facit per se, has ever been held a sound 
one, and it applies most aptly to this objection. By a resolution of Con- 
gress of the 9th of January, 1779, (see journals of Congrfess,) it was order- 
ed that a battalion of six hundred men should be raised in Virginia, on con- 
tinental establishment, to be officered by the Executive of Virginia, and to 
be denominated the regiment of guards. The regiment was, according to 
order, raised, and the officers commissioned by the Governor of Virginia; 
and it continued in the continental service till May, 1781, when the men 
were discharged, and the officers became supernumerary, entitled to all the 
benefits of officers of that class ; and though not actually commissioned by 
Congress, it was under that authority alone they were commissioned. 
George Gibson's was originally a State regiment, and the officers commis- 
sioned by the Governor of Virginia; and the history of it is, that, upon 
the requisition of Congress on Virginia to replace her 9th continental regi- 
ment, which was annihilated at the memorable and bloody battle of Ger- 
mantown. Colonel George Gibson's regiment was, on the 12th of Septem- 
ber, 1777, by an act of the Virginia Assembly, substituted for the 9th regi- 
ment, and tliereby transferred from the State into the continental service. 
Accordingly, by a resolution of Congress, this regiment was ordered into 
the continental service. (See journals of Congress, September, 1777.) Thus 
it appears, that, by law, Gibson's became a continental regiment; and Vir- 
ginia could not, if she desired to do so, recall it. (See letter of the Secre- 
tary of War.) This regiment was in all the hard-fought b:iltles to the 
north — from the battle of Brandywine to the victory at Monmouth ; and 
though, from its being originally a State regiment, mistakes have, from 
time to time, been made as to its true character, by those unacquainted 
with its true history, nothing is more clear than that from 1777 to the close 
of the war it was a continental regiment. 

The report of the select comjnittee concludes with a recommendation 
that no further appropriation of land ought to be made by Congress to sat- 
isfy existing claims to Virginia rrHlitary land bounty; and that no claim to 
commutation pay ought hereafter to be allowed, except upon record or 
other documentary evidence. Besides the considerations already stated, to 
show that the United States are justly and in good faith bound to provide 
for the claims on Virginia to the land bounty in question, if Congress adopt 
the recommendation of the select committee, what is to become of the 10 
per cent, due on about 350,000 acres of land warrants now on file in the 
United States Land Office, on which, by act of Congress, 90 per cent, has 
actually been paid? What is to become of about 350.000 acres of warrants 
now on file in the Land Office of the United States, placed there by the 
claimants, in full faith that the Government, in the exercise of a consistent, 
even-handed justice, would make the same provision for these which liad 
been made for others, identical in all respects, but which, owing to the 
failure, for the last four years, of Congress to make the expected provision 
for them, are reduced in value from $1 25 an acre, to 37 cents? and such 
is the necessitous condition of some who actually paid in blood, and the 
descendants of others who paid the like price for these wan ants, as to com- 
pel a sale of them at the abovenamed reduced price. It is asked, who is to 
provide for them? Is Virginia to provide for them, after surrendering to 



Rep. No. 436. . 123 

the United States, orratuitonsly, the means she had pledged for their satis- 
faction ? Such must be the result, if Congress fail to provide for them. 

In the Ions and labored report of the select committee, no reason is as- 
si^rned for the unjust discrimination which has always been made, and es- 
pe'ciallv during the past five or six ve^Ts, in the provision made by Con- 
cri-ess for United States continental land bounty and Virginia continental 
Fand bounty. Seeing that the United States are equally bound to satisiy 
both, it is difficult to imagine why the first, in all time up to the present 
period, should have been provided for by acts of Congress on demand, while 
a laro:e amount of Virginia continental land bounty has for the past five or 
six years remained wholly unprovided for, to the great loss of the holders 
of these warrants, many of whom, (as has been said.) from necessity, being 
ohlio-ed to sell their warrants at 37 to 50 cents an acre. When it is recollect- 
ed that the State of Virginia gratnitonsl7 reded and granted the land to the 
United States, out of which the United States land bounty has been and is 
to be satisfied, with this proviso in the deed of cession— that if Virginia had 
not reserved a sufficiency of good land on the southeast side of the river 
Ohio, to satisfy the land bounty promised by her to her officers and soldiers 
who served in the continental army, the deficiency was to be made up by 
Congress out of the good lands between the b'cioto and Miami rivers— why, 
thent has this distinction been made ? It is difficult to imagine how, with 
such' facts before them, the select committee came to the conclusion that no 
provision ought to be made for these claims. 

The other recommendation of the select committee, to allow no claim to 
commutation pay, except on record or documentary proof, is, as has been 
said, unprecedented and unjust. The claims which have been presented 
for the last twelve years, and which will probably be presented, are in be- 
half of such officers as can be shown to have been in service subsequent to 
the 21st day of October, 1780, at which date half pay for life was promised 
by Congress to all officers who continued in service to the end of the war, 
or whoj'^subsequent to that date, became supernumerary. At the time of 
the passage of the aforesaid resolution, a reduction of the army took place, 
and several reductions took place afterwards, by means of which many 
officers became supernumerary and entitled to half pay for life. Add to 
this, as the war drew to a close, many officers were left without command, 
owing to the expiration of the enlistment of the soldiers: they, of course, 
went out of actual service, as did many others on leave. It is also true, that, 
subsequent to the passage of the aforesaid resolution allowing half pay for 
life, some officers resigned, and a few were cashiered. Whether any accu- 
rate account was ever made and recorded as to all these matters, so as to 
show what officers became supernumerary— went out of service for want of 
command, or on leave, as the war approached its end ; who resigned or 
were cashiered— certain it is, that no such evidence of these facts now exists, 
owing to the almost entire destruction of these revolutionary archives by 
fire and other casualties. Hence the difficultly now, and for the last twelve 
years, attending the adjustment of these claims. In the examination of 
them, when the claim is in behalf of an officer shown, by satisfactory proof, 
to have been in service subsequent to the 2lst day of October, 1780, and at 
different periods thereafter, extending through 1781 and into 1782, but 
who, subsequent to some one or other date within those periods, does not 
appear to have been in actual service, the presumption is, that such officer 
then left the service; and the question arises, how did he leave it? was he 



124 



Rep. No. 436. 



supernumerary, without command, or absent on leave at the end of the war? 
or did lie resign? or was he cashiered? In the absence of record or other 
documentary evidence to explain this, in order to a decision, presumptive 
evidence must, of necessity, be resorted to. It must be presumed that the 
officer went out of service in some of the modes above mentioned, entitled 
to half pay ; or that he resigned, or was cashiered, and thereby forfeited 
claim to that pay: one or the other of these presumptions is, as has been 
said, necessary to a decision. Is it more reasonable, and does it better com- 
port with the nature of things, to presume that a patriotic officer, with the 
prospect before him of the liberal provision made for him by Congress for 
his service to the end of a war, then near its close, would resign ? or that 
his disappearance from the service at any period after the 21st of October, 
17S0, arose from his having become supernumerary, by reason of the seve- 
ral reductions of the army ; that he had left the service for want of a com- 
mand ; or that he retired on leave, as many did, not to return till ordered? 
The latter presumption has been adopted and acted on by this committee 
and by Congress for the last twelve years ; most of the claims which have 
been allowed during that period were sanctioned on this presumption, and 
the committee can suggest no other just rule for their adjustment. To re- 
quire these claims to be proven now, by record or documentary evidence, 
would be to require that which is impossible, and an act of injustice. 

In conclusion, the committee perceive nothing in the statements made in 
the report of the select committee which calls for a change in the character 
of the proof for establishing claims on the United States for the revolution- 
ary chums referred to. The (Committee on Revolutionary Claims, acting as 
the judicial organ of the House, has decided, heretofore, each claim as it 
occurred, on such evidence, record and parol, as, in their opinion, would be 
aduiitted in a judicial forum. All which is submitted, with the following 
resolutions : 

Resolved, That as Congress continues to adjudicate and allow claims of 
individuals on the United States, for revolutionary services, no cijange in 
the cliaracter and amount of proof now required to adjust and allow those 
claims is deemed necessary. 

Resolved, That provision ought to be made by Congress for the unsatis- 
fied military land-bounty warrants promised by Virginia, in the prosecu- 
tion of the war of the Revolution, to her officers and soldiers who were 
engaged in that war, and who served in her continental and State battal- 
ions, and other corps, and in herlState navy. 



Rep. No. 436. 125 



APPENDIX 

TO THE REPORT OF THE MINORITY OF THE COMMITTEE ON REVOLU- 
TIONARY CLAIMS. 



No. 1. 

To show the loose and irregular proceed ino^s of those boards of officers 
charged with ascertaining what was the actual condition of officers toward 
the close of the war, the case of Major Alexander Dick furnishes a striking 
instance. 

Alexander Dick was, early in the war, commissioned a captain in the 
continental line of the army. Some time in 1779 he was captured, sent to 
England, and lodged in Fortune jail. Some time in the year 1780 he made 
his escape from jail, and after various perils he reached the United States. 
During his absence, he became entitled, b^ promotion, to a majority in the 
continental line ; but, as there was then no command for him in the north- 
ern army, he went to the south, on the earnest recommendation of the Vir- 
ginia Assembly, addressed to General Green, to give Major Dick service in 
the continental army under his command. As, however, General Green 
could give him no employment. Major Dick returned to Virginia a super- 
numerary, in 1781, a short time previous to the invasion of that State by 
Cornwallis. He took the field as a supernumerary major, and was in active 
command up to the surrender of Yorktown; after which, the men under his 
command were discharged, and Major Dick was not again called into ser- 
vice. Such was the true condition of Alexander Dick ; yet, without hav- 
ing ever been commissioned an officer ii. the Virginia State line, he was 
detailed as one of a board of State line officers, to arrange the officers of that 
line ; by which arrangement, Alexander Dick was returned as a major in 
the Virginia State line^ and in service at tie end of the war. By this erro- 
neous return, Alexander Dick was allowed land bounty, as a major in the 
Virginia State line ; and he has been, on tie faith of that return, disallowed 
United States land bounty and commutaton. If, then, a board of officers 
could be palpably in error as to the true ch\racter of its own members, what 
must have been the errors as to officers not present? (See the proceedings of a 
board of officers of the Virginia State line, which met at Richmond, 6th of 
February, and 14th of April, 1782.) 



No. 2. 

(No. 1.) — Captain Thcmas Triplett. 

There were four persons of this name, viz : Captain Thomas Triplett, 
who served to the end of the war, and afterwards removed to South Caro- 
lina, His representatives, on the 14th of October, 1817, received the land 



126 Rep. No. 436. 

for seven years' services. The records of the Virginia land office show 
that they wtre then residents of South Carolina. They are now entitled 
to comnmtation ; but have never asked it. 

The second Thonias Triplett was from Fairfax. He entered the service 
in 1775, and either resigned or returned home on furlough in very bad 
health, and died in 1780. . He was the brother-in-law of General John Chap- 
man Hunter, now of Fairfax. 

The third Thomas Triplett lived in Kentucky, and had been in his dotage 
many years before the pension was obtained in his name — not only in his 
dotage, but entirely without intellect. His son was the fourth of the name ; 
he was the j'elon^ who used the evidences of the services of the true man, 
and, using his father's name, appropriated them accordingly; and thus im- 
posed on the Government at Washington. The services had been rendered 
by one of the name, and the commutation was due ; it was paid to the 
wrong person. If the heirs of the real Captain Triplett shall ever present 
their claim, the proof will doubtless be readily furnished. Here was no 
fraud on behalf of the officer or ^is heirs; but by a drunken man, without 
principle, using the name of his father, who was never one hour in service. 

(No. 2.)— Captain Robert Beall 

There were two of this name. On the 9th of December, 1784, the com- 
mutation was paid to one: he tvas in service 25th oi March, 17b3, when 
he received his warrant (No. 19B, for 4,666| acres) for services from 10th 
of February^ 1776. He was injthe 3d Virginia continental regiment, and 
drew his land on the certificate ofColonel John Gibson, dated 25th of March, 
1783. This same Colonel Johij Gibson, on the 17th of June, 1783, (not 
three months after.) certified thiit the other Captain Robert Beall entered 
the service also in 1776, and continued in service till 1781, "when he be- 
came a supernumerary f^ and l^edrew warrant No. 853, for 4,000 acres. 

One Captain Robert Rell is said to have resigned. But the pos'tive cer- 
tificates ofColonel John Gibson of 25th of March and 17th of June, 1783, 
that one of these officers was thdn in actual service, and that the other was 
then supernumerary , would jusjiry the belief, either that the roll was itself 
erroneous, or had reference to so[iie third individual. 

That the roll or return was erroneous in other respects, and in other 
cases, will be clearly shown hereafter. Colonel James Wood, in 1803, and in 
1808, when additional bounty wis allowed, corroborates the two certificaies 
of Colonel Gibson, and speaks o'both as good officers. Not only is the co- 
temporaneous evidence in JunA 1783, of Colonel Gibson, that the other 
Robert Beall was a swpemumercry in 1781, almost conclusive, but the fact 
of Captain Beall's drawing his warrant under that certificate is an endorse- 
ment of its truth by him ; the contrary of which, if not true, he must neces- 
sarily have known. To suppose he was not a supernumerary, we must 
put more reliance on the list referred to (which will hereafter be shown to 
be incorrect in other cases) than^n the positive testimony of two high offi- 
cers and gentlemen at the date of the transaction. This list was made from 
the best evidence before the boarti, but imperfect evidence nevertheless, and 
was erroneous in many cases. The memoranda on the previous rolls were 
made long after those rolls, and were probably made by the clerk or other 
officer having charge of them — in some instances from the hearsay of tran- 
sient officers, who, being aware that certain officers were no longer in ac' 



Rep. No. 436. 127 

tual service, may have heard or supposed they had resigned, and, from the 
repetition of the rumor or averment, the annotations were made by the clerk 
having charge of the rolls. That they were often erroneous, is clearly 
shown. 

(No. 3.) — Lieutenant John McDoioell. 

On the 14th of June, 1783, he received his land bounty from Virginia for 
three years' services. The records, and the oral testimony in his case, show 
conclusively he was entitled to it. Virginia did not grant an acre of land 
to which he was not entitled. 

(No. 4.) — Ensign John Spiifaihom. 

From the testimony on which he received his Virginia land, it appears he 
was in service at the battle of Great Bridge, December 12, 1775, and con- 
tinued in active service in the seven northern campaigns, until 17th De- 
cember, 17S0, when he was appointed an ensign ; and the records show 
him to have continued in active service till after the arrangement of 1781. 
Two of the witnesses say he continued m service to the end of the war. 
The list dated 2d September, 1782, contains his name among the resigned 
officers. If he resigned, he was entitled only to 2,666| acres, having served 
for about six years ; he was allowed 518 acres over that quantity. 

Let it be borne in mind, these rolls showing the different arrangements 
of the officers were lost or 7nislaid in ^785, and were found by Judge Ca- 
bell on 2d of October, 1829 ; during th^t interval of forty-four years, it is 
believed no human eye ever saw them. They were before the Legis- 
lature in 1785, when the claims of the supernumerary officers were argued 
at great length. Captain Edmund Read .vas a member of the House, and 
doubtless put these by mistake among his private papers. He died not long 
after ; and Judge Cabell, his executor, in .829, when examining his papers, 
found these rolls, which he immediately deposited among the public ar- 
chives of the State. 

Thus, if it be true that some allowances have been made, for more than 
would appear by these rolls to have been due, Virginia is not in fault if the 
other testimony in the absence of this were satisfactory, as was most con- 
clusively the case in Spitfathom's claim. 

(No. 5.) — Captain miliam Vause. 

After serving nearly all the war, he wis superseded at Cumberland for 
absence. In 1783 he was unanimously reinstated ; he having shown that 
he was in the western country at the line, and could not possibly have 
heard of the order convening the board. Colonel James "Wood says he 
was president of the board which unanimously reinstated Captain V. 

(No. 6.) — Lieutenant Thomas Wallace. 

He was in service over three years, whether he resigned or not. This 
made the allowance by Virginia unquestionably correct. If he resigned 
before the end of the war, he is entitled to nothing more. 



128 Rep. No. 436. 

(No. 7.) — Captain James Craine. 

Tt was thought that his having received depreciation pay to 31st Decem- 
ber, 1781, was prima /acie evidence that his time ended then. No de- 
preciation was paid after that time, because there was no depreciation after 
that date. To receive to that date, is conchisive of service lor that period ; 
but as no payments in depreciated currency were made afterward, no in- 
ference can possibly be fairly drawn that an officer resigned then, becatise 
his settlement for depreciation ended there. And this is again conchisive 
that the word " resigned," opposite Captain C.'s name on the arrangement of 
February, 1781, must necessarily have been written of ter the year 1781; 
which is remarked, in order to show that these annotations or notes have 
not the authority of the board even, but were made according to the infor- 
mation collected by the keeper of the returns. If Captain C. resigned, the 
Executive of Virginia had no evidence of the fact, and was obliged to act 
as it did, upon the evidence pres^ted ; which is admitted to be very strong, 
and is probably entitled to more yeight than the evidence of resignation. 

(No. 8.) — Lieiienant John Townes. 

On 28th November, 1783, he received for three years' service. Mr. Hag- 
ner certifies that his accounts w^'e settled up to 12th March, 1782. His 
commission in the 6th regiment, at Chesterfield arrangement, is stated to 
have borne date 1st July, 1777. tlere, then, is positive proof of record that 
he was entitled to all the land which Virginia gave him. 

Here, again, it is to be remarket], that it is manifest the word " cashiered" 
was not written opposite his narne by proper authority, as the subsequent 
records show that he had not beei cashiered. 

(No. 9.) — Ca^taifi Charles Snead 

Is said to have been superseded 2d September, 1782 — probably for 
non-attendance. He is said to h; ve been a good officer, of great pride and 
high character; and his having men superseded (overslaughed) would not 
deprive him of his rights, unless he claimed the bounty under the act of 
1782. His claim under the previous laws v/as good, unless he had, by mis- 
condnct, forfeited his rights. Tqs act of 1782 gave the bounty to certain 
officers, (not before entitled,) on condition that they had not been superseded ; 
but if the claims were not made ulider this law, no such condition attached. 
Arbitrary superseding (without jibt cause,) so far as is known, could not 
deprive an officer of his rights ; hnd upon the conviction of the propriety 
of this position, all the discriminded officers (who were not tried by court 
martial) have been, on solemn agument, paid their half pay, after taking 
counsel from some of the ablest m n in the country. 

If Captain Snead was superseded, it may have been for the same reason 
that Captain Vause was ; and the reproach, if it were one, may have been 
removed in the same manner ; altfiough we see no evidence on the subject, 
as there would have been none inl Captain Vause's case, but for the certifi- 
cate of Colonel Wood — that is, if 'Vause had not applied very early for his 
land bounty, this return of the bolrd could not have been satisfactorily ex- 
plained. Captain Snead was entitled to the Virginia land, whether he was 
superseded or not, unless he left the service. 



Rep. No. 436. 129 

(No. 10.) — Lieutenant John Barns. 

The records show him to have been more than three years in service. 
(See Smitli's Report, No. 2, page 3.) If the return of 2d September, 1782, 
be correct in regard to him, nothing was due him. 

(No. 11.) — Captain Nathan Lamme. 

January 17, 1786, he received land for three years' services; his com- 
mission was dated September 10, 1778, and it is conceded he resigned after 
May, 1782. Virginia did right in granting the land. 

Here again it is seen the word "superseded" opposite his name, as the 
arrangement of 1781, was made without Mithority, for the return of Sep- 
leruber, 1782, states that he had resigned. These repeated errors show that 
but htlle confidence can be placed in those arrangements, as they are so 
frequently inconsistent wiih each other. 

(No. 12.) — Lieutenant Robert Jouett. 



He was manifestly, by the records qucited, more than three years in ser- 
vice, prior to his alleged resignation^ (September 1782,) and Virginia un- 
questionably did right in granting the la^d. It appears his accounts were 
settled to May 10, J 782. It is not verylprobable an officer would have re- 
signed after that period ; yet it may hale been true. This same list enu- 
merates Lieutenant William McGuire among the resigned officers, whereas 
the proof in his case is conclusive that h^ served to the end of the war. So 
with Captain Francis Minnis on the same list. 

(No. 13.) — Ensign Thornton Taylor 

Was a supernumerary of 1 778, and is cdmitted to have been entitled to 
land. All those i^upernumeraries were alsD entitled to half pay. 

(No. 14.) — Lieut anant Barnes Burnett. 

See remarks in the preceding case, which apply to this. 

(No. 15.) — Captain Thomas Blackwell. 

See remarks on Thornton Taylor's case. 

(No. 16.) — Captain John Thomas, 

See Smith's report, December 10, 1835, p. 112. He was in service as a 
sergeant early in 1776, and, after serving more than three } ears at the north, 
was appointed a captain in the regiment af guards, and became supernu- 
merary with the rest of the officers of that regiment. 

(No. 17.) — Ensign James Broadus. 

19th February, 1784, three months and four days after the war ended, 
he received his land bounty. He was manifestly entitled to it. 



130 Rep. No. 436. 

(No. 18.) — Captain Samuel Jones. 

On 19th December, 1782, before the war was ended, and before any ces- 
sion to Congress, he received his bounty land, 

(No. 19.) — Lieutenant Simon Summers. 

16th December, 1764, he received land as lientenant for three years' 
service. 1st March, 1817, he revived for the seventh year's service. The 
records show he was a lieutenant as well as adjutant, which appears to 
have been overlooked. The seplement to lOt/i February, 1781, no more 
shows his resignation than thjit Captain Vause's settlement to 10th Feb- 
ruary, 1781, showed his. j 

It may be remarked, that ab|)iit that time most of the officers became 
supernumerary, and payments teased lo them ; and, of course, there was 
no depreciation to make ^ood. {Again, it often happened that officers drew 
nothing after the money becamd so much depreciated ; those that could do 
it. preferred to wait ; the c'onseq[ience was, that after the 1st January, 1782, 
when the pay became good, they drew, in good money, the arrears ; and, 
in the depreciation account, ihef would settle up to the period when they 
last rtceived depreciated money. 

(Nos. 20, 21, and 22.)— Captains John Winston, Tarpley Whita, and 

John Marks. 



20th April, 1783, John AVinst|)ii received for three years ; Captain White 
on 15th July, 1783; and Captaii Marks on 3d September, 1782, 

The periods at which they received their lands show they were entitled. 

how it. They were doubtless supernume- 
Virginia granted the lands properly. 



The other public records also 
raries ; but whether so, or not 



(No. 23.) — dptain Philip Slaughter. 

It is shown that he entered tie service at the commencement of the war, 
and was in active service in all the arduous campaigns of 1776, '77, '78, 
and '79. 

Subsequently, in 1779 or '80, he authorized his friend, the late Chief Jus- 
tice, to hand in his resignation f he should be called into service again ; 
but not being called on, he sayS(and Judge Marshall was satisfied of the 
fact) that the resignation was ndt handed in. 

At a subsequent period. Captain Slaughter swears that General Muhlen- 
berg returned to him his comihission, (which he had sent to the General 
wiia his intention to resign,) and stated that he could not think of accepting 
it. If General Muhlenberg kcfit a diary, this statement of Captain S. might 
be proved by it. An intention to resign is nothing. Did he actually resign, 
and was iheresignatioji. acceptd, ? This is the only question. Captain S. 
stands as high as any man for honor and integrity ; he says he offered to 
resign, and for two or three mojiths thought his resignation had been ac- 
cepted, when he received it back from his commanding ofliccr, who declin- 
ed to accept it, and urged it apo[i him to hold it. He did hold it. and in 
proof exhibits the commission afe having been in his possession ever smce. 
His intention to resign at one tiine, does not affect his kgal rights ; and the 



Rep. No. 436. 131 

campaigns through which he actually served should settle any question 
about equity. 

(No. 24.) — Lieutenant Wm. Madison. 

It appears by the affidavits of General Madison, the petitioner, and of 
George Corbin, and other evidence, that ihe court of Madison county loas 
satisfied that Lieutenant Madison was appointed a lieutenant in Harrison's 
artillery in 1781, and never resigned. The court knew the parties, and, 
knowing them, was satisfied of the truth of the statement. The affidavit of 
Corbin, an unirnpeached witneoS, is posiitire as to the fact of Madison being 
an officer in that regiment. The affidavit of General Madison, a man of the 
highest character, taken in connexion with the other evidence, satiohed the 
Executive of Virginia that he had been, f rst, a lieutenant of Harrison's ar- 
tillery, and, secondly, that he never resified his commission. Whether he 
was in active service two months or more, is immaterial ; il he hold his com- 
mission, he was entitled to the bounty! if he held his " appointment" it 
was the same thing. Hundreds of ofhiers never received their " commis- 
sions" at all. The journals of Congress are filled with cases of commissions 
being issued to take date years before tioy were issued, viz : from the time 
of the appointment ; which often took 3 ace jnst before, or during; or im- 
mediately ajter action, and in face of he enemy. If it be conceded that 
'Madison had the appointment for any fme, no matter how short, then he is 
entitled to the land, (fee, unless he gave it up. • 

His having been but a short time ii service, may answer very well to 
create a prejudice against him, but doesli ot touch his legal rights. 
, It may be repeated: the only questions in the case are, first, did he ever 
hold the appointment of lieutenant in Hau'ison's artillery 1 And if so, se- 
condly, did he ever resign it '? 

If he held that appointment, no matter for how short a time, and did not 
resign it, he was entitled to the land bcunty. And if he had the legal 
right, the Government should not withholl it for any supposed want of meri- 
torions service. 

Judge Brooke says. General Madison vished to bring forward his claim 
at an earlier day — in the lifetmie of ids bother, the late President; but was 
dissuaded by the latter. This shows he must have considered himself en- 
titled, and that the presentation of the claim was not the result of any recent 
thought or determination. 



No. 3. 



In regard to the allegation that ^500,010 was accepted by Virginia in full 
for expenses incurred in the Illinois campaigns; that, nor no other sum 
paid to Vu-ginia, did by possibility inclnds the half pay claimed by the offi- 
cers who served in the Illinois expeditipi from Yirginia, because Virginia 
then did not consider herself bound for tie claim, and in the deed of cession 
does not appear even to have contemplcfied such cases ; all her other corps 
were especir.ily provided for in that .deed. But the courts decided that 
Virginia was bound to pay these claims : and as no charge on that ac- 
count had ever been made against the United States, and as Virginia had 



132 



Rep. No. 436. 



not voluntarily paid them, Congress made provision for them by an act 
passed 1832. 

It is manifest that the $500,000 spoken of by Knox must have been esti- 
mated on the amount either actually paid by Virginia at the time of settle- 
ment, or known to be due on acknowledo-ed engagements, and could not in- 
clude claims then and for many years thereafter resisted by Virginia. The 
United States, therefore, can no more avail themselves of that settlement, or 
agreement to bar the claim, than they could of the limitation acts of 1792, 
1793, and 1794. If the determination not to pay wants an excuse, why not 
appeal to these acts of limitation ? To avail of a settlement, when it is known 
these claims were not even contemplated in the adjustment, would surely 
be as inequitable as a resort to the act of limitation. 



So. 4. 



By a resolution of Congress, (see journals, 27th of May, 1778, vol. 2, 
page 567,) the regiments were to Have officers, as follows, viz : 

Infantry, thirty two commissioned officers ; three staft' officers to be taken 
from the supernumeraries. i 

Artillery, seventy-seven commissioned officers, (see page 568.) 

On the 18th of May, 1776, twoisubalterns and forty privates were added 
to the artillery regiments. i 

On the 3d ofOctobeij, 1780, (tol. 3. page 532.) the artillery regiments 
were reduced to nine companies, [but with the same number of commis- 
sioned officers as at present. 

By the resolution of Congress, Blst of October, 17S0, (page 538,) the in- 
fantry regiments were lo have thiiy-six commissioned officers and four su- 
pernumerary subalterns, to recrui , <fcc., (fcc. 

The regiments of artillery weje to be augmented to ten companies, 
thus making room for the officers as at first constituted ; or possibly it re- 
quired new officers for the new ccnpany, which gave occasion for the ap- 
pGUitment of Lieutenants Ed. Broke, Ph. Lightfoot, and Wm. Madison, in 
1781. 



So. 5. 

By a resolution of Congress, 7lh of August, 1782, a reduction of the 
army was ordered, and a list of tie officers retained to be returned to the 
War Office. No list of the deranged officers was required to be returned; 
they were to be considered as rearing, entitled to all the emoluments to 
which the officers were entitled, vho retired under the rerolution of the 
21st of October, 1780. 

By a resolution of Congress, of \he 31st of December, 1781, the officers 
not belonging to the line of any mrticular State, and not returned as in 
service on the 1st of January, 17S;J, were to be considered as retiring, and 
entitled to the benefit of the resoluion of the 21st of October, 1780. 

By a resolution of the 23d of April, 1782, (the 5tli resolution,) the num- 
ber of lieutenants to a regiment wds reduced to ten. The junior lieuten- 
ants to retire, entitled to the benefit of the resolution of the 21st of Octo- 
ber, 1780. 



Rep. No. 436. 133 

Seeing ikat no officer was allowed eommutalion under the regulations of 
the War Department, except such as by the muster-rolls was iu actual ser- 
vice on the 3d of November, 1783, or who was returned supernumerary, it 
must be evident that many supernumerary and retirhig officers entitled to 
that, did not receive it ; and nearly all the existing claims are of that class. 



No. 6. 



The Commonwealth of Virginia to Francis Taylor, Esq., Greeting : 

Know you, that, from the special trust and confidence which is reposed in 
your patriotism, fidelity, courage, and good conduct, you are, by these pre- 
sents, constituted and appointed colonel ol the regiment of volunteers for 
guarding the convention troops at Charlott3sviIle. You are therefore care- 
fully and diligently to discharge the duty of colonel of the said regiment, 
by doing and performing all manner of tilings thereunto belonging ; and 
you are to pay a ready obedience to all orders and instructions which from 
time to time you may receive from the Governor or executive power of 
this State for the time being, or any of your superior officers, agreeable to 
the rules and regulations of the convention or General Assembly. All of- 
ficers and soldiers under your command ^re hereby strictly charged and re- 
quired to be obedient to yoi.r orders, audita aid you in the execution of this 
commission, according to the intent and jjirport thereof. 

Witness Patrick Henry, Esq., Governor or Chief Magistrate of the Com- 
monwealth, at Williamsburg, this 5th day of March in the 3d year of the 
Commonwealth, A. D. 1779. 

P. HENRY. 



No. 7. 



I do hereby certify, that William Vause kvas appointed a captain in the 
twelfth Virginia regiment in the beginninsof the year 1777, and continued 
to act as such until the arrangement at Cimberland old court-hou^o, when 
he was superseded, as an absentee: that, in the spring of the year 1783, 
General Muhlenberg appointed a board o' officers (of which I was presi- 
dent) to inquire into the circumstances of Captain Vause's case: he ap- 
peared, and made satisfactory proof to the board that he was in the west- 
ern country, and could not possibly have Iiad notice of the meeting ordered 
at Cumberland courthouse; in consequence of which, the board were 
unanimously of opinion that he ought to le reinstated. 

Given under my hand this 25th day of November, 1784. 

JAMES WOOD, 
late Brigadier General. 

Executive Department, 

Richmond^ February 24, 1840. 

The above is a true copy of a paper filed in this department. 

WM. H. RICHAHDSON, 

Secretary Com. 



134 



Eep. No. 436. 

No. 8. 



Department of War, 
Bounty Land Office, March 12, 1840. 

Sir : Pursuant to the request contained in yours of the 7th instant, I 
have the honor to send you the subjoined statement, taken from the books 
of this office, shov/ing the number of land warrants of the -''evolutionary 
class which have issued from the 30th September, 1828, to the 1st Jan- 



uary, 1840, mchisive 


,de 


sign 


atin 


y th 


erei 


n th 


e ra 


nk 


ot t 


he 


thee 


rs, I 


md the 


nurnber of warrants issued in eaj 


h year. 










6ij be 


be 


tD 


bo 


bo 


be 


be 


be 


be . 


be 


oi~ . 


i£ '^ t»~, 




S ci 3. C 


z: ^ 


^ ri 


ac6 


c^ 


= >n 


= 'JS 


£ t-^ 


~ cc 


5 ci 


??o 


5 rQ « 




11 


S2 


-S f^ 


£2 




-ri <^ 


S2 


S2 


n 








CO J K 
fc- CJ f 




OJ ^ 


(U 


(U 


QJ 


tL> 


aj 


(U 


K 


<u 


QJ -^ 


>L> 




"s S 




cT 


, o" 


. o" 


, o" 


^ o" 


. o 


. o" 


, cT 


^o~ 


, 0" 


.0" 


0; ^« 


^^►^ 




s^^ 


s^- 


%z 


^^ 


S" 


S^ 


^^ 


S" 


S" 


^" 


rt" 


1 S ' 


=« S 


Rank and Gr^^-DE. 


a." t- 


OJ u. 




1 !- 


0) •-, 


<u t- 


<U 1- 


!- 


CJ t- 


CJ t- 


o; t^ 


D 


-' "*^ 




>> OJ 


>><!) 


>-. OJ 


t-, 0) 


>^(U 


>.<u 


>1 o 


>% <U 


?»^ O) 


>.<u 


>-. QJ 


o| 


QJ .*" ".^ 






^ 




x: 


X! 


^ 






^ 


^ 




zi^QGO 




•5 S 


a, p. 

■5 S 


"3 ^ 


1. g 
a. 






2 5 


■£ 5 






Si s 


tr. *-i 


li; (Tj I— 1 ^- 




H. 


P- 


, '£■ 


&- 


&. 


c_ 




c. 


0. 


c. 








!-. 0) 


5- QJ 


1- CL> 


Em 


i a* 


!-. o 


t- cT 


t- 0/ 


s- D 


!-i OJ 


!- QJ 




fcX) 'A -5^ to 




Pw 


°w 


Pco 


^^C/2 


Oc/3 


rfi 


,2 CC 


,^02 


°tZ2 


^- cc 


C 


C) /:■ ^ _^ 




'j-t 


Cjh 


^ 


ff 


fcH 


Ph 


b 


fa 


fa 


fa 


fa 


fa "^ 


<~ 


Colonels - - - 




2 




1 




2 








1 






6 


Lieutenant colonels 


1 


_ 


T 


3 


1 


2 


_ 


1 


_ 


1 


1 


1 


11 


Majors . - - 


1 


1 


1 


5 


1 


1 


_ 


1 




_ 


_ 


_ 


11 


Captains - 


8 


6 


8 


.9 


6 


6 


3 


7 


3 


8 


5 


_ 


79 


Lieutenants 


15 


11 


16 


.4 


13 


11 


5 


7 




12 


7 


1 


112 


Ensigns and cornets 


2 


3 


2 


3 


2 


o 


1 


_ 


T 


1 





1 


21 


Physicians and surgeons - 


_ 


_ 


o 


1 1 


_ 


4 


_ 


_ 


2 


_ 


2 


_ 


11 


Surgeon's mates - 


_ 


3 


_ 


_ 


1 


1 


_ 


1 


_ 


_ 


1 


_ 


7 


Deputy purveyors 


_ 


_ 


_ 


_ 


_ 


_ 


_ 


1 


_ 


_ 


_ 


_ 


• 1 


Assistant apothecary 


_ 


• _ 


_ 


_ 


_ 


_ 


_ 


_ 


_ 


1 


_ 


_ 


1 


Rank and file 


146 
173 


93 
119 


68 


57 


70 


67 


46 


21 


19 


25 


16 


G 


634 


Aggregate of each year - 


98 


102 


94 


97 


55 


39 


•25 


49 


34 


9 


894 


Very respectful! 


■, your obedien 


t se 
Wl 


rvant, 
LLIAM 


GORDON. 


Hon. John Taliaferro, 










House oj 


Re 


pres 


enU 


tiv( 


3S. 



















Rep. No. 436. 

No. 9. 



135 



Department op War, 
Bounty Land Office, February 25, 1840. 

Sir: Agreeably to your request, I have now the honor to send you the 
subjoined list, showing the number of ofiicers, non-commissioned officers, 
and soldiers of the several continental hnes and corps of the revolutionary 
army, wh'^se claims to bounty lands, due on the part of the United iStates, 
are, at this date, unsatisfied. This list is taken from one which was care- 
fully prepared in this department in 1S2S, and is comprised in Senate 
document No. 42, 20th Congress 1st session. 



Names of States 


and corps. 


. 


No. of officers. 


No. of non-com- 
missioned officers 
and soldiers. 


New Hampshire - 
Massachusetts 




- 


3 
22 


50 

286 


Connecticut - • 


- 


- 


4 


126 


Rhode Island 


- 


- 


— 


48 


New York 


. 


- 


2 


46 


New Jersey 
Pennsylvania 
Delaware - 


- 


- 


2 
33 


113' 

387 
64 


Maryland - 
Virginia 


- 


- 


12 
15 


213 

203 


North Carolina 


- 


- 


^ 5 


64 


South Carolina 


- 


- 


22 




Georgia 


- 


- 


15 




Artillery artificers, &c. 
Armand's legion - 


- 


- 


— 


25 
181 


Hazen's regiment - 


- 


- 


— 


134 


Von Herr's dragoons 


- 


- 


— 


11 


Invalid regiment - 


- 


- 


— 


101 


Foreign officers 


- 


- 


18 




W^arrants on file, not de 


ivered 




8 


39 




161 


2,091 



Aggregate of officers, non-commissioned officers, and soldiers - 2,252 
Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

VVM. GORDON. 
Hon. John Taliaferro, 

House of Representatives, j 






LBJe2 



'8^ 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




0011 



800 821 2 # 



- - ^ ^ -,^ ».^ jC ^:^ ,€ ^4 v*^ ^ir *^?; ^?^'^ *^ ^^ ■^^- 

.* !>■ ■*!; :'t vM: ;»t t /i ;« .■■-» ^;''-.>^-'-^- ■- 
,, ,- ,if "# uf i;f :| iS' .4 t^. ;«^.'^,.,'^.r-, 

— \ ■ ■' "- • " ^ »■ ^ i } ' "£. .<. 4, i . Im €, r» i . r- lA .lift r I . J . > 

.i' N< Hf nv ^u. 1^ It ^'^i j% ;^ ^■'■ 

■^■'v' " ' 'f ^jf Ml^ vl ^5? it *^^- .-^v :^ 

',x*'- ./^^'f-^rV w V -Si: wi vi. '4 1* ,J« .'<.* 



iti %^ ¥i ^:s i^l *M. ^" 

4 "tJ! '*i? IV :-:^ ■ • ^•' 



€ v^- ;^. ^^ # '^ .'^ '< .;^' 

/^- *i( ^^' ■'it ■ ■ /^'. '^' 

\.f '.«f ".«f 'stf 'tSi^- n ^i| 4 rf 

^^ ■■••a .-.r '.{ ^*^^ :^ <:=i . ^ ^. ^? 






'•■i u ^^ ,. 
1 yf u{ i^ 



m- .^^ ;^i ; 

1- iif .4^ m 






■ :/^/y' -.i 'U'^ • . ;< ].i ;^ ^^ .^ :^^.^^ ;^^ % 

^ - ..«if 'i d .:£ • • *ii ^J ;'A ^^, ^ 'H .^v...-^ 
4 »- .■■•*•■ /^ .,-,.r' ; ■:» v >..■ --a i-P -fi -M n •% *, -l 



>U ^u tit ■^. ;^^ ^^ ;'^ y- 
i '4 '^«C ^^- ^* 'fl ^'t Z^- 
'f^ m M .M. ::4. /H. -'i.^'" 



4 4^. .,. -4 .| . V -v^ . is^* ^v? -i^ ^ .^sl: ;ll. ^l 

^'iw %..:-•«.«■ m. '■^■^.. f;:i ^I -d hi ^. !;fe 



4: '11 "4 



•»«- \».K i«» <.: a <5u /J -'S:. vif # ^^ 'M *u .-v .'h ,^ .,^ 



> . ■ 






'-^^ if 



t *.^: .:H 



'M -'^t ' C ''€. '^■' :^ ':^ ; 



a ^ -H, 






